UP Medical College Reservation Order 'Amounts to Contempt' — Allahabad HC Stays Clause, Seeks Affidavit

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Overview

Reservation law and the contempt jurisdiction of a High Court rarely intersect as directly as they did in a recent Allahabad High Court order concerning MBBS admissions at four Uttar Pradesh government medical colleges. Students who scored well in the General and EWS categories of NEET-UG 2026 challenged a State Government Order that reserved 62 of 85 seats for Scheduled Caste candidates, 5 for Scheduled Tribe candidates and 11 for Other Backward Classes at each of four colleges — leaving only 7 unreserved seats — despite an undertaking the State had earlier given the same Court that it would follow the statutory reservation caps from this academic session onward. The Lucknow Bench found the fresh order to be in breach of that undertaking and of its own earlier directions, stayed the offending clause, and called for a personal affidavit from a senior State official before deciding whether to proceed with contempt.

Case Details

Case: Sachin Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Education And 3 Others
Case No.: WRIT-C No. 9943 of 2026
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Bench: Hon’ble Alok Mathur, J. and Hon’ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.
Date of order summarised here: 16 September 2026 (as recorded on the order itself; see verification note above on a date discrepancy in press coverage)
Nature of order: Interim order in a pending writ petition, directing a stay and a personal affidavit — not a final adjudication of contempt

Facts

The petitioners were NEET-UG 2026 candidates seeking MBBS admission through the Uttar Pradesh counselling process on the strength of their merit in the Open Merit/Unreserved category. Their grievance was directed at a Government Order dated 01.09.2026, under which, at four State medical colleges — Ambedkar Nagar, Kannauj, Jalaun and Saharanpur — 62 of 85 seats were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, 5 for Scheduled Tribe candidates and 11 for Other Backward Classes candidates, leaving only 7 seats unreserved. The petitioners contended this breached the ceiling fixed by the U.P. Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006.

This was not the first round of this dispute. A near-identical reservation pattern for NEET-UG 2025 at the same four colleges had already been challenged in Sabra Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-C No. 7820 of 2025. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 25.08.2025, quashed six Government Orders (dated between 2010 and 2015) that had fixed reservation in excess of the 2006 Act’s limits, and directed the State to fill the four colleges’ seats strictly per the 2006 Act. On the State’s Special Appeal (State of U.P. and Another v. Sabra Ahmad, Special Appeal No. 295 of 2025), the Division Bench, by order dated 04.09.2025, permitted the 2025-26 admissions already made to stand — to avoid disrupting students already admitted — but only on the State’s undertaking, recorded in paragraph 11 of that order, that “they undertake to implement it from the next academic session i.e. 2026-27.” The Division Bench required a written affidavit confirming this within a week, failing which its order would cease to operate.

Despite this history, the Government Order dated 01.09.2026 — for the very next academic session the State had undertaken to comply in — again exceeded the 2006 Act’s caps for the same four colleges. This prompted the present writ petition.

What the Court Observed and Directed

The Court recorded the earlier Division Bench’s view that reservation under the 2006 Act could only be provided in accordance with its statutorily fixed percentages — 21% for Scheduled Castes, 2% for Scheduled Tribes and 27% for Other Backward Classes — within the Supreme Court’s 50% overall ceiling.
The Bench observed: “This Court is of the considered view that the impugned Government Order is clearly in the teeth of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench as well as the undertaking furnished by the State Government before this Court and clearly amounts to contempt of court.”
The Court noted that the learned Additional Advocate General “could not advance any argument which could justify the passing of the impugned order,” and that the only submission made — reliance on a Special Component Plan under which the four colleges were constituted — had already been considered and rejected in the earlier Sabra Ahmad round of litigation.
The Court directed: “In view of the above, Clause 6(क)(ii) of the impugned Government Order dated 01.09.2026 (annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court. Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed with the admissions, if they choose, strictly in terms of the reservation provided for in the Act of 2006.”
The Court further directed that a personal affidavit be filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, explaining how the impugned order came to be passed in violation of the earlier directions and undertaking, to be filed within ten days, with the respondents at liberty to file counter-affidavits in the meantime.
The Court recorded that the question of initiating contempt proceedings would be considered only after that affidavit is filed, and listed the matter next for 12.10.2026.

The contempt question in this matter therefore remains pending — the Court has recorded a prima facie view at the interim stage, not a final finding of contempt against any individual, and this post expresses no view on the outcome of that pending consideration.

Precedents and Prior Orders Relied On

The Court did not invoke any judgment outside this same litigation as the basis for its reasoning; the order rests entirely on the binding effect of the Court’s own earlier orders and the State’s undertaking to it:

Sabra Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others, Writ-C No. 7820 of 2025 (Single Judge, judgment dated 25.08.2025) — quashed prior Government Orders that fixed reservation beyond the 2006 Act’s limits for the same four colleges.
State of U.P. and Another v. Sabra Ahmad, Special Appeal No. 295 of 2025 (Division Bench, order dated 04.09.2025) — recorded the State’s undertaking to follow the 2006 Act’s caps from the 2026-27 academic session.

As background only: in the Special Appeal, the State’s counsel had cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India to argue that the 50% reservation ceiling is not absolute. The Division Bench’s order records that counsel “does not dispute that the same can be breached only in accordance with law” and “could not place any Act/prescriptions under law justifying the breach” — that submission was not accepted, and it is not part of the reasoning in the present order.

Statutory Framework

Section 4 of the U.P. Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006 fixes reservation in admissions to educational institutions (aided and unaided, excluding Article 30 minority institutions) at twenty-one per cent for Scheduled Castes, two per cent for Scheduled Tribes and twenty-seven per cent for Other Backward Classes. It is this statutory ceiling — not any executive discretion — that governs reservation at State medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh, including the four institutions at the centre of this dispute.

Takeaway

An undertaking given to a court is not a formality — the Allahabad High Court treated a State Government Order that departed from its own recorded undertaking as conduct that, at the interim stage, “clearly amounts to contempt of court.”
Reservation in UP’s educational institutions is capped by the U.P. Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006 at 21% (SC), 2% (ST) and 27% (OBC); an executive order cannot enhance these caps without legal sanction.
A special-purpose scheme (here, a Special Component Plan) does not by itself override a statutory reservation ceiling — that argument had already been examined and rejected in earlier litigation over the same colleges.
Contempt at the interim stage is a prima facie view, not a final finding; the Court called for a personal affidavit from the concerned official before deciding whether to proceed further, and the matter remains pending before the High Court.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.