Back
Supreme Court Passes the Baton: MP's 27% OBC Quota Fight Heads Back to High Court
In a procedural pivot, the has remanded a slew of petitions challenging the Madhya Pradesh government's enhancement of Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation from 14% to 27% in public employment back to the . A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to form a special bench and resolve the disputes within three months, citing the urgency from stalled recruitments and administrative bottlenecks. The lead case, Yogesh Kumar Thakur v. Guru Ghasidas Sahitya Avam Sanskriti Academy & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 11442-11443/2025), bundles appeals, special leave petitions, transferred cases, and writs testing the 2019 amendment's validity.
Roots in Indra Sawhney: A Reservation Timeline Unfolds
The saga traces back to the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India ( ), which capped reservations at 50%. Post-that, Madhya Pradesh's 1994 Act set OBC quota at 14%, alongside 16% for Scheduled Castes (SC) and 20% for Scheduled Tribes (ST), keeping totals under the ceiling even with later 10% EWS additions.
Demands for parity with the national 27% OBC norm simmered, especially after Chhattisgarh—carved out in —hiked quotas to 58% via laws, only for its High Court to strike them down in 2022 (stayed by Supreme Court in 2023). Madhya Pradesh finally bowed to pressure with a 2019 Ordinance, formalized as the , gazetted .
Petitioners swiftly challenged this in High Court writs like WP No. 5901/2019, securing interim stays barring implementation. Undeterred, the state issued 27% quota ads and corrigenda (e.g., ; ), plus a order for non-challenged recruitments—prompting more stays, including in WP No. 3688/2022. With processes frozen, the state prepared dual candidate lists and sought transfers to Supreme Court, allowed .
State's Plea for Relief vs. Petitioners' 50% Firewall
The Madhya Pradesh government, facing "acute employee shortage" akin to Chhattisgarh's, urged vacation of stays via . Citing a Supreme Court order in Chhattisgarh SLPs (18816-18817/2022), it sought permission for recruitments subject to final outcomes, arguing stalled processes since 2022 crippled departments, colleges, and admissions. An affidavit highlighted OBCs comprising over 85% of the population yet underrepresented.
Opponents, including appellants like Yogesh Kumar Thakur, countered that the hike breaches the 50% cap—pushing totals to 73% with EWS—violating equality under . They stressed High Court stays as lawful amid unresolved merits, resisting parity with Chhattisgarh's distinct social fabric.
Why Not Supreme Court? Tailoring Justice to State Soil
The bench demurred on interim relief, distinguishing Chhattisgarh:
"The position that was obtained in the state of Chhattisgarh... cannot be the solitary guiding principal for considering the legality and validity of
in the state of Madhya Pradesh."
It underscored state-varying demands:
"The demand for reservation as well as the measures that state may adopt for provisioning
will vary from State to State depending on the social fabric of that State."
Prioritizing High Court primacy for challenges, the Court deemed direct scrutiny premature without a High Court view, opting for remand over parallel tracks.
Key Observations -
"While
and reservations are the constitutional obligations and prerogatives of State policy, the High Court of the concerned State is best suited to examine the validity and
of challenges to such policy decisions at the first instance."
-
"We are of the opinion that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh will be in the best position to consider take a holistic view of the need as well as the legality of the
for the state."
-
"In view of the long pendency and also the urgency, it is requested that the bench to which the matters are assigned will take up and dispose of the challenges within three months from today."
Remand with a Deadline: Unblocking the Bottleneck
The order disposes all proceedings, remanding to a special High Court bench for holistic merits review, including pending IAs. No merits opinion or interim tweaks expressed, but the tight timeline signals relief for Madhya Pradesh's limbo—recruitments could resume post-decision if quotas hold.
This sets a template for reservation rows: defer to state High Courts first, respecting federal diversity while pushing swift resolutions. Aspirants and administrators await the High Court's call within months.
