50% Reservation Ceiling: MP HC, SC Rulings | CLAT Legal GK

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 10 OCTOBER 2026

Two courts, one principle. On Friday, 9 October 2026, the 50% ceiling on reservation was applied in two separate cases on the same day. In the first, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down the 2019 amendment that had raised reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in State services and higher education from 14% to 27%. In the second, the Supreme Court dismissed the Andhra Pradesh State’s appeal against a High Court order that had capped reservation in local body elections at 50%.

According to a report in Lawbeat published on 9 October, the Madhya Pradesh ruling was delivered by Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf in a large batch of petitions led by Ashita Dubey & Ors v State of Madhya Pradesh. India TV, reporting the same evening, described it as a 159-page judgment. A separate Lawbeat report on the same day recorded that a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu had dismissed the State’s special leave petition in Andhra Pradesh v Thandava Yogesh, holding that the High Court had passed a reasonable order.

The Madhya Pradesh ruling: 14% stays

The dispute began on 8 March 2019, when the State issued Ordinance No. 2 of 2019 raising OBC reservation from 14% to 27%; it was followed by an amendment to the State’s public-services reservation law the same year. With Scheduled Castes at 16% and Scheduled Tribes at 20%, a 27% OBC share would have taken vertical reservation for backward classes to 63% — well above the 50% line. (The State also provides 10% for the Economically Weaker Sections, which is treated separately, as explained below.)

The High Court found no “extraordinary situation” that could justify crossing the ceiling. It relied on Indra Sawhney and Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil, and summed up the issue in a single line reported by Lawbeat: “This case is not about grant of reservation but extent of reservation.” The Bench also noted that the data on higher education and public services indicated that OBCs were adequately represented for the purposes of Article 16(4).

The court was careful about people already appointed. Selections made under the 27% quota between 2 September 2019 and 29 September 2022 are protected; the extra posts are to be adjusted in the next three recruitment rounds. Appointments after 29 September 2022 beyond the 14% share are treated as void to that extent, and the affected 13% of posts are to go to the unreserved category.

The Andhra Pradesh case: the local-body triple test

On 1 October 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Challa Gunaranjan) struck down two government orders: G.O.Ms.No.105 of 20 August 2026, which provided 34% reservation for Backward Classes in Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads, and G.O.Rt.No.1065 of 19 August 2026, which applied 33.33% BC reservation in urban local bodies. Both were set aside to the extent that combined vertical reservation for SCs, STs and BCs exceeded 50%. The High Court held that data from a Unified Family Survey “cannot form the basis” for declaring BC reservation, and directed that the election process begin within six weeks.

In the Supreme Court, Lawbeat reported, Justice Datta asked the State, “First show us under what law this family survey is made.” The bench then dismissed the appeal. The Hans India’s report on 10 October and the LiveLaw daily round-up for 9 October also record the dismissal.

In K. Krishna Murthy v Union of India (2010), a five-judge bench upheld reservation for backward classes in local bodies but required it to be backed by a rigorous inquiry and to respect the upper ceiling. In Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v State of Maharashtra (4 March 2021), the Court spelt out the triple test: (1) a dedicated commission to conduct a contemporaneous, rigorous inquiry into backwardness in local bodies; (2) specifying the proportion of reservation required, local body-wise, in light of the commission’s recommendations; and (3) ensuring that reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs together does not exceed 50% in aggregate. The Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on Gawali; the survey was not the dedicated-commission exercise the test demands.

What about EWS, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra?

How can a 10% EWS quota sit on top of 50%? The answer lies in Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India (7 November 2022), where the Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing 10% EWS reservation. The majority read the 50% ceiling in the context of the backward-class reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4), and held that it could not be “overstretched” to the EWS quota. That is why the Madhya Pradesh arithmetic counts SC, ST and OBC (vertical) shares against the ceiling.

Tamil Nadu’s 69% is the other common question. Its 1993 reservation law was placed in the Ninth Schedule by the 76th Amendment (1994). But after I.R. Coelho (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 remain open to review on the basic-structure test, so the Ninth Schedule is not a complete shield.

The ceiling is also being tested elsewhere. On the same day, 9 October, a three-judge bench of the Bombay High Court (Justices M S Karnik, N J Jamadar and Sandeep Marne) began a fresh hearing of challenges to the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2024, which provides 10% reservation for Marathas in education and jobs, according to the Free Press Journal.

Analysis: data is the hinge

The common thread in both 9 October decisions is evidence. Indra Sawhney did not freeze reservation at 50% forever; it left a door open for “extraordinary situations”. What the courts are asking, case after case, is for the State to walk through that door with quantifiable, contemporaneous data gathered through a lawful process — a dedicated commission for local bodies, and proof of inadequate representation for jobs under Article 16(4). In Madhya Pradesh, the data pointed the other way; in Andhra Pradesh, the survey relied on lacked a clear legal basis. For a law student, this is the heart of the doctrine: reservation is a constitutional power, but its extent must be justified.