Court Rules No Extraordinary Circumstances Justify Breach of Reservation Ceiling; Appointments Before Sept 2022 Saved, Excess Beyond 14% Post-2022 Declared Void
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench, Jabalpur) in the case of Ashita Dubey and Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, declared the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2019 (the Amendment Act, 2019) unconstitutional and ultra vires for increasing the Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation quota from 14% to 27%, which caused the total reservation to exceed the Supreme Court mandated ceiling of 50%.
The Court meticulously examined the constitutional provisions-Articles 14, 15, 16, and 335 of the Constitution of India-and the long-standing precedent set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India (1992) and reiterated in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2021). The Court upheld the principle that reservation under Article 16(4) is meant to secure adequate representation, not proportionate representation, and that total reservation should generally not exceed 50%, barring extraordinary circumstances.
The State of Madhya Pradesh failed to establish any such extraordinary situation. The Court found that OBCs in Madhya Pradesh are already well integrated into political, educational, and service sectors, with substantial representation, including four Chief Ministers from OBC communities in the last two decades, and a significant share of legislative and ministerial positions. Data from the BRAUSS Report (2023) and other sources showed OBCs securing seats beyond their reserved quota through open competition, indicating adequate representation.
Further, the Court held that the empirical basis relied upon by the State-the Mahajan Commission Report (1983) and the BRAUSS Report (2023)-was either outdated or statistically insufficient and methodologically flawed, rendering it inadequate to justify breaching the reservation ceiling. The Court also criticized the State for not consulting the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) on this major policy matter, as mandated under Article 338B(9), deeming this omission fatal to the amendment's validity.
Significantly, the Court distinguished between the legality of reservation per se and the extent of reservation, underscoring that while OBCs are entitled to reservation, the increase to 27% breaches constitutional limits without valid justification.
Regarding appointments made under the impugned amendment, the Court saved those appointments to OBC candidates made up to September 29, 2022, following the principle laid down in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, preserving the rights of incumbents appointed before the interim order. However, appointments made after this date exceeding the 14% reservation were declared null and void. The Court directed recruiting agencies to fill these excess posts from unreserved candidates within three months.
The Court also dismissed connected petitions seeking additional reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and horizontal reservations in light of the striking down of the Amendment Act.
The judgment emphasizes the delicate balance between affirmative action and equality of opportunity, efficiency in administration, and the constitutional mandate to periodically review and rationalize reservation policies based on contemporary data. It reaffirms the binding precedent of the 50% reservation ceiling and the need for scientific and comprehensive data, as well as consultation with constitutional bodies like the NCBC, before altering reservation quotas.
This ruling marks a critical reaffirmation of constitutional principles relating to affirmative action in Madhya Pradesh and sets a precedent for other states considering increasing reservation quotas beyond the established ceiling without adequate justification.
Bottom Line:
Reservation - Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2019 increasing OBC reservation from 14% to 27% and taking total reservation beyond 50% - Held, unconstitutional - No extraordinary circumstances as contemplated in Indra Sawhney and reiterated in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil shown - OBCs found adequately represented in public services and higher education - Mahajan Commission Report, 1983 held outdated and BRAUSS Report, 2023 held post facto, unscientific and based only on OBC respondents - Amendment Act struck down - Appointments made prior to 29.09.2022 saved, but excess appointments thereafter beyond 14% held void and 13% posts to go to unreserved candidates.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 15, 16(1), 16(4), 16(4A), 16(4B), 16(6), 335, 338B(9), 342A(3); Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2019; Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994; Constitution (102nd and 105th Amendment) Acts.
