Madhya Pradesh High Court Limits OBC Quota to 14%
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has invalidated the 2019 amendment that increased OBC reservation to 27%, reinstating the original 14% quota.
The 2019 amendment for 27% OBC reservation has been struck down.
The court emphasized adequate representation of OBCs in public services.
OBCs currently secure about 50% of open competition seats in Madhya Pradesh.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has annulled the MP Public Services (Reservation) Amendment Act of 2019, which had raised the reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) from 14% to 27%. The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf on October 9, 2026. The court found that the existing representation of OBCs in the state was sufficient and did not warrant an increase in the reservation percentage.
The amendment faced multiple challenges in court, primarily from a group of MBBS students from the General Category who argued that the sudden increase in OBC reservation during their counseling process was unfair. The court reviewed various data points, including the representation of OBCs in the state legislature and their enrollment rates in higher education, which indicated that OBCs were adequately represented in both public services and educational institutions.
According to the court's findings, OBC students account for 33.87% of enrollments in higher education, and they secure approximately 14% of seats through their reservation quota while also competing successfully for open seats. The court noted that since 2003, OBCs have held significant positions in the state government, including four Chief Ministers and over 25% of the legislative assembly members. This data led the court to conclude that the existing 14% reservation was sufficient to ensure fair representation.
The ruling has broader implications for the public service sector in Madhya Pradesh, where the reservation system plays a crucial role in ensuring representation for various communities. The court's decision reinforces the principle that reservation should not exceed what is necessary to achieve equality and representation, as stipulated under Article 16 of the Constitution.
Looking ahead, the court's ruling may prompt the state government to reassess its reservation policies and consider the implications for future legislation. The decision also sets a precedent for similar cases across India, highlighting the need for a balanced approach to reservation that respects constitutional mandates while ensuring fair competition among all candidates.
