New Delhi/Bhopal: The Supreme Court on Monday sharply criticized the lawyers representing general-category candidates in the long-pending Madhya Pradesh OBC reservation case, after they sought more time to study a voluminous set of documents recently submitted by the state government. The top court, which was originally scheduled to begin daily hearings on September 24, has now rescheduled the matter to October 8, 2025, placing it at the “top of the board” for daily consideration.
The case, which has remained unresolved for years, deals with the Madhya Pradesh government’s move to grant 27% reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment and educational institutions. The interim stay on the enhanced quota continues, with the issue hinging on the constitutional requirement of proving “extraordinary circumstances” before breaching the 50% ceiling on reservations, as laid down in the landmark Indira Sawhney (Mandal Commission) judgment.
Heated Exchange in Court
During Monday’s proceedings, Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Centre, along with lawyers for the Madhya Pradesh government, pressed the bench to vacate the interim stay and allow the implementation of the 27% OBC quota.
However, lawyers Pooja Dhar and Lekhi, appearing for general-category candidates, told the court that the state had only the previous day handed them 15,000 pages of documents and reports to justify the increased reservation. They requested more time to analyze the documents.
The bench, visibly displeased, shot back:
“We are ready, you are not. You keep demanding interim relief, but when the time comes for arguments, you ask for adjournments. Everyone is waiting, but nobody is prepared to take the lead. You are not serious about this case. Look at who is appearing as senior counsel—nobody is ready for arguments.”
The court’s remarks highlighted its growing impatience with the delays plaguing the case, which has wide-ranging implications not only for Madhya Pradesh but also for the broader interpretation of reservation limits in India.
Government’s “Extraordinary Circumstances” Report
According to legal sources, the 15,000 pages submitted by the Madhya Pradesh government contain data and official reports on the participation of OBCs in social, economic, and administrative structures of the state. The government reportedly argues that these materials prove the existence of “extraordinary circumstances” warranting an increase in OBC reservation beyond the 50% limit.
However, the authenticity and precise content of the documents have not yet been officially confirmed. The Supreme Court has already stressed in earlier hearings that any attempt to cross the 50% cap must be backed by strong, evidence-based justification.
Demand to Separate Chhattisgarh Case
Adding another layer to the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the bench to separate the Chhattisgarh OBC reservation matter from Madhya Pradesh’s case. Both states have faced legal hurdles over similar policies, but the SG argued that distinct circumstances in each state warranted separate consideration. The court, however, has yet to issue a final order on this request.
OBC Welfare Committee’s Push for Fresh Legislation
Meanwhile, the OBC Welfare Committee renewed its call for the Madhya Pradesh government to enact a fresh law safeguarding OBC reservation. Members argued that given the repeated judicial interventions and delays, a statutory framework would ensure stronger constitutional backing for the policy.
Senior advocate P. Wilson, representing OBC groups, argued before the court that the matter was prima facie in their favor and pressed for interim orders. The bench acknowledged the urgency and agreed to fast-track hearings from October 8.
The OBC Mahasabha, in a statement following the proceedings, welcomed the development:
“Today’s hearing marks an important and decisive step toward protecting the constitutional rights of the OBC community and restoring 27% reservation. The Mahasabha will continue to fight for the rights of society at every level.”
The case has acquired significant political overtones in Madhya Pradesh, a state with a large OBC population. With assembly elections on the horizon, both the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are attempting to position themselves as champions of OBC rights.
Congress state president Jitu Patwari launched a scathing attack on the BJP leadership, holding them responsible for the six-year delay in implementing the quota:
“If OBC reservation has not been implemented for six years, the guilty are Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Mohan Yadav. The government will eventually have to grant this reservation. I myself will be present in Delhi during the hearings. Congress lawyers will appear in the case, and I will stand alongside them in the Supreme Court.”
On the other hand, Chief Minister Dr. Mohan Yadav has been actively engaged with legal experts in Delhi. He reportedly met Solicitor General Tushar Mehta at Madhya Pradesh Bhawan on Monday and held further consultations with senior lawyers again on Tuesday, signaling the government’s intent to secure a favorable outcome.
Earlier Rebukes from the Court
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has expressed its frustration with the Madhya Pradesh government’s handling of the issue. On August 12, the bench criticized the state for leaving 13% OBC posts vacant for six years, questioning the government’s commitment to the cause.
Advocate Varun Thakur, representing the OBC Mahasabha, reminded the court of its earlier remark:
“Is the MP government sleeping? What has been done about these posts in six years?”
The case originally arose after candidates selected by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) were denied appointments due to the stay on enhanced OBC reservations. Petitioners have also challenged a September 29, 2022 notification issued by the state government, arguing that it violated constitutional provisions and Supreme Court precedents.
Broader Legal Context
At the heart of the controversy lies the 50% ceiling on reservations, a judicially evolved doctrine from the 1992 Indira Sawhney case. While exceptions have been recognized, the burden of proof lies heavily on states to demonstrate that extraordinary conditions exist to warrant a breach.
Madhya Pradesh’s submission of an “extraordinary circumstances” report is an attempt to meet this burden. If accepted, it could set a precedent for other states seeking to expand OBC reservations. Conversely, if rejected, it may reaffirm the rigidity of the 50% cap, shaping India’s affirmative action landscape for years to come.
