Madhya Pradesh OBC quota: HC dismisses plea for ‘Neutral Special Bench’ without OBC or unreserved category judge

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has now dismissed an application seeking that all matters related to this issue be heard by a “Neutral Special Bench”, which has neither an OBC member nor a member of the unreserved category. 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench hearing a batch of petitions on increasing the Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation in the State to 27% from 14% has now dismissed an application seeking that all matters related to this issue be heard by a “Neutral Special Bench”, which has neither an OBC member nor a member of the unreserved category. 

This Interlocutory Application (IA) was filed by a representative of a welfare organisation working for reservation rights of SC,ST, and OBC groups, saying that since the batch of petitions being heard by the High Court involved OBC groups and unreserved category groups on opposing sides of the same issue, the Bench hearing the matter should not have any member of OBC or from the unreserved category. The application sought that the matter be referred to the court of the Chief Justice so that such a Special Bench can be constituted.

The High Court is currently seized with a batch of over 60 petitions that challenge a State government ordinance of 2019, which increased the OBC quota in State government jobs and education from 14% to 27%, which had increased total reservations in the State to over 70%.

While some of the petitions challenging it have been filed by unreserved category candidates who argued that the rise was eating into their share of the seats, others have been filed by OBC groups seeking that the increase in quota not be reversed. The State government has maintained in court that the 50% ceiling in reservations is not sacrosanct, as reiterated by the Supreme Court’s judgment in the EWS case. 

However, the Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Virender Singh (Jabalpur Bench), which is hearing all matters pertaining to this case, ruled in a March 20 order that the IA to form a “Neutral Special Bench” without OBC and unreserved category judges was an “attempt to browbeat the court” and delay the proceedings.

The court held that the petitioners were unable to point out any personal bias that the two judges on the Bench would have with respect to the issue at hand, adding, “Thus, recusal by any one of us in the given facts and circumstances would defy the oath taken for rendering justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

The court noted that the application did not relate to any personal allegation against the members of the Bench, “except contending by implication that this Bench comprises judges belonging to unreserved category and, therefore, may not render justice while deciding this issue which partly relates to unreserved category”.