New Delhi, February 21 The Supreme Court has referred a batch of pleas concerning the validity of the increase in OBC reservation in Madhya Pradesh from 14 per cent to 27 per cent to the state high court.
In 2019, the state decided to increase the Other Backward Classes (OBC) quota in Madhya Pradesh from 14 per cent to 27 per cent in government jobs and education.
While asking the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to constitute a special bench to hear these matters, the top court said the pleas should be decided within three months.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the order on February 19 while hearing a batch of pleas on the issue.
"We believe that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is best positioned to consider, take a holistic view of the need as well as the legality of affirmative action for the state," the bench said.
It stated that while affirmative action and reservations are the constitutional obligations and prerogatives of state policy, the high court of the concerned state is best suited to examine the validity and legality of challenges to such policy decisions at the first instance.
It said that examining these issues independently, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, without the decision of the high court, would be inappropriate.
"However, we can ensure that the interest is balanced by requesting the high court to ensure that these petitions are taken up and disposed of expeditiously," it said, adding, "In view of the above, we remit the batch of these appeals, special leave petitions, transferred cases, and writ petitions to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh."
The bench before which the matters will be assigned in the high court can also consider the applications by contesting parties.
"In view of the long pendency and also the urgency, it is requested that the bench to which the matters are assigned will take up and dispose of the challenges within three months from today," the apex court said.
The top court made it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter or on the interim arrangement pending disposal of the writ petitions.