Allahabad High Court Stays UP's Enhanced Reservation in Four Medical Colleges, Calls It Contempt

In a stern rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government, the Allahabad High Court has stayed a controversial government order that reserved 62 out of 85 MBBS seats for Scheduled Caste candidates in four state-run medical colleges, ruling that the order prima facie amounts to contempt of court. A Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai on September 16, 2026, pulled up the state for violating its own undertaking and defying earlier judicial directions.

A Promise Broken: The Undertaking and the Violation

The case stems from a Government Order dated September 1, 2026, which prescribed special reservation for medical colleges at Ambedkar Nagar, Kannauj, Jalaun, and Saharanpur. Of the 85 seats in each college, only 7 were kept unreserved, while 62 were set aside for SC, 5 for ST, and 11 for OBC candidates. This sharply contrasted with the U.P. Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006, which mandates 21% SC reservation.

The matter has a history. In the earlier Sabra Ahmad case (Writ-C No. 7820 of 2025), a Single Judge had quashed similar inflated quotas for the 2025-26 session. On appeal, the state did not contest the legal findings but sought to protect ongoing admissions, giving an oral and written undertaking to implement the Act strictly from the 2026-27 academic session. The Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 295 of 2025 had allowed the state's request for a one-year reprieve solely on that promise.

The State's Defence: Special Component Plan Rejected

Arguing before the High Court, the state attempted to justify the impugned order by invoking the Special Component Plan under which the four colleges were established. However, the bench noted that this very argument had already been considered and rejected in the earlier round of litigation.

"The only attempt made was to rely upon the Special Component Plan under which the aforesaid four medical colleges had been constituted. However, the said argument had already been considered and rejected in the previous round of litigation," the court observed.

'Clear Contempt': Court's Strong Observations

The court minced no words in condemning the state's action. It held that the impugned order was "clearly in the teeth of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench as well as the undertaking furnished by the State Government before this Court and clearly amounts to contempt of court ."

The bench further stated: "Once the law had been clearly laid down by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in special appeal had interfered only to the limited extent of protecting the existing admission process for the then current academic year while further specifically directing that the provisions of the Act of 2006 was to be followed from the next academic session, i.e. 2026-27 and an oral undertaking had also been given before this Court, then there appears to be no justification for the State Government to have passed an order contrary to the directions of this Court and its own undertaking ."

What Happens Next: Personal Affidavit and Possible Contempt Proceedings

The court stayed Clause 6(क)(ii) of the Government Order and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed with admissions strictly in accordance with the Act of 2006. In a significant move, it directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Medical Education, to file a personal affidavit within ten days explaining how the impugned order came to be passed in clear violation of the court's earlier directives. The court indicated that initiation of contempt proceedings would be considered after reviewing that affidavit.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 12, 2026.