Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): Senior advocate of the Supreme Court Aman Lekhi, appearing on behalf of the unreserved category (UR), apprised the High Court that 27% reservation for the Other Backwards Classes (OBC) is not legally sustainable as the OBC population mentioned in the legislative Bill is 27%, while the state government, in its affidavit, cited it as 51%.
He apprised the court of the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the determination of OBC reservation, specifically citing landmark cases such as Indra Sawhney vs Union of India and M Nagaraj.
He submitted that while the Indra Sawhney judgment clarifies that the total reservation limit may exceed 50% in “exceptional circumstances”, the Madhya Pradesh government, at the time of enacting the law granting 27% reservation, had cited the total OBC population in the state as 27% in the legislative Bill itself. However, in its subsequent response filed before the court, the government cited the total OBC population as 51%.
Lekhi argued that the Madhya Pradesh government had neither specified in its response nor submitted any explanation or material indicating what constituted the “special circumstances” that would justify exceeding the 50% ceiling on reservation. Therefore, he contended that the 27% reservation granted to the OBC category is not legally sustainable.
A Division Bench presided over by Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva conducted hearings on the OBC reservation cases and scheduled the next hearing for June 16.
The Division Bench had originally scheduled hearings in the matter for May 13, 14 and 15. However, in view of hearings in certain specific matters, the OBC reservation cases will not be heard on May 15.
