Supreme Court hearing on OBC reservation from Oct 8:General category lawyers seek more time; SC rebukes, says, “We are ready, you are not”

The Supreme Court was expected to begin daily hearings on Madhya Pradesh’s OBC reservation case from September 24, but the schedule has now been shifted to October 8. During Monday’s proceedings, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and the Madhya Pradesh government’s lawyers urged the bench to lift the interim stay on 27% OBC reservation. However, lawyers Pooja Dhar and Lekhi, appearing for general-category candidates, told the court they had been handed 15,000 pages of documents by the state government only yesterday. They requested more time to study them. In response, the bench remarked sharply: “We are ready, you are not.” Government submits “extraordinary circumstances” report According to sources, the documents submitted by the state reportedly cite “extraordinary circumstances” to justify additional reservation for OBCs. These include data and reports on OBC participation in Madhya Pradesh’s social and administrative structures. Official confirmation of this content has not yet been made. The court has already emphasized in earlier hearings, citing the Indira Sawhney judgment, that exceeding the 50% reservation cap requires evidence of “extraordinary circumstances.” SC criticizes lack of preparation The Supreme Court rebuked the general-category lawyers for seeking more time, saying: We are prepared to take up the matter, but you are not. You keep demanding interim relief, but we have made the situation clear. Everyone is waiting, but nobody is prepared to take the lead. You are not serious about this case. Look at who is appearing as senior counsel—nobody is ready for arguments. Meanwhile, the OBC Welfare Committee once again demanded the passage of a fresh Act to secure reservation. Demand to separate Chhattisgarh case Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the court to separate the OBC reservation case of Chhattisgarh from that of Madhya Pradesh. Case listed “top of the board” from October 8 Senior advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the OBC community, argued that the matter was prima facie and sought interim orders. The bench agreed and directed that the case be listed as “top of the board” for daily hearing from October 8. Following the order, the OBC Mahasabha issued a statement: Today’s hearing marks an important and decisive step toward protecting the constitutional rights of the OBC community and restoring 27% reservation. The Mahasabha will continue to fight for the rights of society at every level. Political stakes Congress state president Jitu Patwari directly blamed BJP leaders, saying, If OBC reservation has not been implemented for six years, the guilty are Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Mohan Yadav. The government will eventually have to grant this reservation. I myself will be present in Delhi during the hearings. Congress lawyers will appear in the case, and I will stand alongside them in the Supreme Court. Chief Minister Dr. Mohan Yadav, meanwhile, has been in Delhi for two consecutive days to meet lawyers. On Monday, he met Solicitor General Tushar Mehta at Madhya Pradesh Bhawan and held further consultations with legal experts again on Tuesday. Earlier Rebuke from Supreme Court On August 12, the court had lashed out at the Madhya Pradesh government for leaving 13% OBC posts vacant for six years. Advocate Varun Thakur, representing the OBC Mahasabha, recalled the bench’s remark: “Is the MP government sleeping? What has been done about these posts in six years?” The case, originally filed by MPPSC-selected candidates who were denied appointments, also challenges a September 29, 2022 government notification. Thakur added that while the state government has repeatedly told the court it is committed to granting OBC reservation, the bench has expressed frustration: The biggest issue is that MPs publicly declare their commitment to 27% OBC reservation, but their lawyers turn up in court only after the order is dictated. Then these leaders complain about administrative hurdles caused by the stay on the ordinance.