Amit Kumar Yadav, Nayana Goswami
Madhya Pradesh has once again found itself at the centre of a national debate on the future of social justice, affirmative action, and the legal limits of representation. The state government’s decision to push for 27 percent reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and its subsequent affidavit before the Supreme Court have triggered intense political and legal discourse. The controversy is not merely about numbers—it is about the larger philosophical and constitutional question of whether the Indian state can continue to reconcile its commitment to equality with the demands of representation in an unequal social order.
On August 28, Chief Minister Dr. Mohan Yadav convened an all-party meeting to build a consensus around the state’s position on OBC reservation. The meeting marked a decisive political moment. As it addresses a long-standing question in Madhya Pradesh: Does the existing 14 percent OBC reservation adequately represent the demographic realities and socio-economic composition of the state? Historically, the Madhya Pradesh Public Service (Reservation) Act, 1994, provided for 14 percent reservation for OBCs. This framework remained unchanged for over two decades, until the state government in 2019 brought an amendment increasing the quota to 27 percent. However, in 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed its implementation, invoking the Supreme Court’s 50 percent ceiling on total reservations, as laid down in the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment. Despite the legal impediment, the Shivraj Singh government, guided by fresh advice from the Advocate General, reintroduced the 27 percent quota in 2021. The High Court once again intervened and stayed the decision in the Shivam Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh case.
Following this, the state devised a temporary “87:13 formula,” under which 87 percent of recruitment results were declared, while 13 percent of posts were withheld in a ‘Hold’. Half of these posts were treated as OBC and half as unreserved, pending the Supreme Court’s final verdict. In January 2025, a petition challenging this arrangement was dismissed, prompting the state to seek an expedited hearing in the Supreme Court. If the government’s plea succeeds, Madhya Pradesh will become one of the few states in India with a total reservation of 73 percent—comprising 20 percent for Scheduled Tribes, 16 percent for Scheduled Castes, 10 percent for the Economically Weaker Sections, and 27 percent for OBCs. The legal question before the Supreme Court, however, is crucial: can the state government justify breaching the 50 percent limit by establishing the existence of “extraordinary circumstances”? This question carries profound implications. Since 2019, more than 35 recruitment processes have been caught in legal limbo, affecting nearly eight lakh candidates. Around 3.2 lakh of them, who are already selected, are waiting for their appointments. The issue, therefore, is not confined to constitutional interpretation; it directly impacts the lives and livelihoods of thousands. The Mohan Yadav government has made it clear that it is prepared to fight the case at every level to ensure that social justice does not become a casualty of judicial rigidity. However, this debate must not be reduced to a technical or administrative quarrel. Reservation in India has never been a mere policy of representation; it is a moral and historical commitment to correcting structural inequalities entrenched over centuries. The push to raise OBC reservation from 14 to 27 percent must thus be read as an attempt to align state policy with social reality.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had argued in the Constituent Assembly that “political democracy would remain hollow without social and economic democracy”. For him, equality before the law was meaningless unless it was supported by equality in society. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia later expanded this argument by asserting that caste was the fundamental cause of inequality in Indian society and that democracy would remain incomplete until backward classes received proportionate participation in power structures. His slogan “Pichhda Pave Sau Mein Saath”—sixty out of a hundred for the backward—was not a demand for privilege but a call for justice. The same moral impulse is found in Gandhi’s concept of Sarvodaya (the welfare of all) and Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Antyodaya (the upliftment of the last person). Together, these traditions remind us that the Indian idea of social justice has always gone beyond the liberal notion of equality of opportunity—it is also about recognition and redistribution. As philosophers John Rawls and Nancy Fraser have argued, justice must entail the correction of structural disadvantages and the creation of real equality of conditions.
It is within this intellectual and moral framework that the MP government has grounded its argument. Relying on the findings of the Mahajan Commission (1980), the State Backward Classes Commission (1996–2001), and the latest Socio-Economic Survey (2022–23), the government contends that over half the state’s population belongs to OBC communities. When combined with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, nearly 87 percent of Madhya Pradesh’s population belongs to historically disadvantaged groups. In such a context, continuing with a 14 percent OBC quota cannot be considered just or proportionate. The Mahajan Commission and several subsequent studies have recommended an OBC quota ranging between 27 and 35 percent, reinforcing the state’s position as empirically and morally sound. Critics of the proposal often invoke the Indra Sawhney precedent and the sanctity of the 50 percent ceiling. Yet, this ceiling was established in a very different political and social context. Moreover, since the 10 percent quota for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) was introduced, the total reservation in many states has already exceeded 50 percent. Tamil Nadu, for instance, has maintained over 69 percent reservation for decades, validated through its placement in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. In this light, Madhya Pradesh’s proposal is neither unprecedented nor unconstitutional. The “merit” argument also deserves closer scrutiny. Those opposing reservation often claim that it undermines meritocracy. However, as Ambedkar and later scholars have emphasized, merit in India has historically been socially constructed—shaped by caste privilege, economic inheritance, and unequal access to education. The upper-caste monopoly over land, learning, and employment ensured that merit was not a measure of talent but of opportunity. Democracy cannot thrive where structural inequality masquerades as merit.
The current controversy also reflects the volatile intersection of caste, politics, and ideology. A distorted interpretation of a passage from the Mahajan Commission report referring to the mythological story of Ram and Shambuka was circulated on social media, triggering an ideological uproar. The BJP’s MP unit responded with a nine-point clarification, but the controversy revealed how questions of caste and mythology continue to be manipulated to polarize opinion. Adding to this, the state’s appointment of senior advocate and DMK Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson to argue the case before the Supreme Court drew unnecessary political reactions. Yet, this was a legally astute move. Wilson, who played a key role in securing OBC reservation in NEET’s All India Quota, brings both expertise and experience to the case. The attempt to politicize his appointment reflects how social justice debates often become captive to partisan interpretations. Politically, Dr. Mohan Yadav’s assertive stand has sent a strong signal to OBC communities across India that his government is committed to defending their constitutional rights. This decision is crucial not only for Madhya Pradesh but also for the BJP’s wider social coalition. Any retreat at this point could alienate the OBC base that forms a decisive electoral bloc in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh. It is therefore no coincidence that the timing of this legal push coincides with the BJP’s larger effort to consolidate its social justice narrative ahead of forthcoming state elections.
Beyond politics, however, the question remains: are the existing reservation lines adequate for today’s India? If democracy is to mean genuine equality of opportunity, then the architecture of affirmative action must evolve with changing realities. The question is not when reservation will end, but how it can be made more just, effective, and inclusive. Expanding the scope of reservation beyond education and public employment—to include areas such as healthcare, land distribution, and social security—can deepen its transformative potential. Madhya Pradesh’s ongoing debate demonstrates that social justice in India is not a finished project but an ongoing process. The Constitution envisioned a democracy based not merely on political rights but on social equality. Even today, a majority of the population feels excluded from the structures of opportunity and power; this is not a problem of arithmetic—it is a moral and democratic failure.
Revisiting the boundaries of reservation in light of contemporary socio-economic realities is therefore not an act of defiance but of fidelity to the constitutional spirit. The 27 percent OBC quota in Madhya Pradesh is more than a policy—it is a reaffirmation of the state’s moral obligation to ensure equality in a deeply unequal society. The current moment demands collective resolve to look beyond legal ceilings and political calculations, and to confront the structural inequities that still define India’s social order. In that sense, the Mohan government’s stance represents not merely a political assertion but a renewal of the Republic’s unfinished promise—to make substantive democracy and provide social justice.
~~~
Amit Kumar Yadav is a PhD Scholar in Political Science, Jawaharlal Nehru University & President, Indian Academic Forum for Social Justice. Email: amitjnu6999@gmai.com
Nayana Goswami is an MA Student in Political Science, Dibrugarh University. Email: nayanagoswami1204@gmail.com
