The Madhya Pradesh government has appealed to the Supreme Court to view the 50% ceiling on reservations as a “flexible” guideline, arguing it should be permissible to exceed this limit in “special situations.” The state is seeking judicial approval for a new law that significantly increases the quota for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in state government jobs, raising it from 14% to 27%.
This legislative change by Madhya Pradesh directly challenges a precedent set 33 years ago by a nine-judge Constitution Bench in the landmark Mandal Commission case, which firmly established the 50% reservation ceiling.
The state government asserts that this expansion of OBC reservation is crucial to address the deep-rooted social isolation and exclusion experienced by over half of its population. It highlighted that even the Supreme Court itself has, on various occasions, characterized the 50% reservation limit as a “flexible guideline” rather than an unchangeable constitutional mandate.
This legal challenge initiated by Madhya Pradesh has gained significant traction, with Chhattisgarh also approaching the Supreme Court on similar grounds. Notably, certain districts in Chhattisgarh already implement a staggering 85% reservation.
Madhya Pradesh argues that the pervasive poverty and long-standing intergenerational marginalization affecting 94 OBC castes and sub-castes within the state constitute an “exceptional situation.” They believe this necessitates a departure from the court’s 50% limit to effectively deliver welfare and ensure equality for these disadvantaged communities.
The core question being debated is whether reservations should be allowed to exceed the 50% cap.
A Supreme Court Bench, led by Justice P.S. Narasimha, has consented to review the legality of Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 1994, specifically its 2019 amendment. This amendment is responsible for elevating the OBC quota to 27%.
The Supreme Court took suo motu (on its own initiative) action, directing the transfer of several pending petitions from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, including a primary one filed by Shivam Gautam, represented by advocate Prathvi Raj Chauhan. This was done to ensure an authoritative ruling on the matter. The case is scheduled for an urgent hearing on October 8.
According to the state, represented by advocate Mrinal Gopal Elker, the protracted legal battle in the High Court concerning the 2019 amendment’s validity has halted recruitments across 12 government departments since 2022. This urgency prompted the court to schedule the case for October 8.
The government presented data from the 2011 Census for Madhya Pradesh, showing that Scheduled Castes accounted for 15.6% of the population, Scheduled Tribes for 21.1%, and Other Backward Classes for “more than 51%.”
In its affidavit, the Madhya Pradesh government reasoned that collectively, these disadvantaged communities make up over 87% of the state’s population. It argued that restricting OBCs to merely 14% reservation was grossly disproportionate to their demographic representation and their actual educational and social disadvantages. Therefore, the increase to 27% is presented as a necessary and constitutionally required corrective measure.
The state further cited reports from the Madhya Pradesh Backward Classes Commission, which confirmed that the 94 OBC castes and sub-castes continue to be primarily involved in traditional, manual, and agricultural work, underscoring their ongoing marginalization.
The Mahajan Commission, established by the Congress government in 1980, had previously identified “severe social discrimination,” including segregation in public and dining spaces. It noted that approximately 90% of these communities lived in temporary housing with inadequate amenities. Politically, OBC representation in the Legislative Assembly stayed below 16%, with overall OBC representation in various classes being only 8.241%. Despite making up 48.08% of the population according to the 1981 Census, OBCs were significantly underrepresented in education, government employment, and political bodies. The state highlighted that this commission had actually recommended a 35% reservation for OBCs, which is considerably higher than the current 27% quota being debated.
The state justified its stance by pointing to recent Supreme Court judgments, such as the Jaishri Lamanrao Patil case, which have allowed exceptions to the 50% ceiling when “special circumstances” are clearly demonstrated.
“In certain special situations, it might be necessary to exceed the 50% cap, provided the state can present compelling and extraordinary circumstances,” the Madhya Pradesh government argued. “While such cases warrant strict scrutiny, a relaxation of the limit is constitutionally permissible.”