Call Us Now

+91 9606900005 / 04

For Enquiry

Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 19 February 2022

Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 19 February 2022  


  1. Wrong solution
  2. Being thin-skinned

Wrong solution


Recently a legislation made by Haryana Government mandates 75% reservation for local candidates in private sector jobs that pay up to ₹30,000 a month. The Supreme Court has asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to decide the validity of the law within four weeks.


GS –II: Government Policies & Interventions, Issues Relating to Development,

GS-II: Employment, Growth & Development, Human Resource

Dimensions of the Article:

  1. Background
  2. Introducing quota in Private sector
  3. The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act
  4. Way Forward


  • The Punjab and Haryana High Court had stayed a controversial State law which provides 75% reservation for local youths in private sector jobs earning less than ₹30,000 a month.
  • The Supreme Court has set aside an interim stay order granted by the High Court. This was because the stay was granted without assigning reasons.
  • It is a settled principle that legislation cannot be stayed unless there is a preliminary finding that it is unconstitutional or suffers from any glaring illegality.

Introducing quota in Private sector:

  • There are few issues when the State introduces a quota in the private sector, especially if it is based on a domicile norm.
  • The states like Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand have also introduced such laws, while the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu had promised 75% reservation in its election manifesto for last year’s Assembly polls.
  • States seek to adopt such laws mainly due to the unemployment caused by the COVIS-19 pandemic and provide opportunities for the youths.

The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act:

  • The law provides for reservation in private sector and it covers companies, societies, trusts, partnership firms and individual employers.
  • Violation of Constitution: The act goes against the Constitution as there is discrimination on the basis of place of birth or residence.
    • The Constitution allows the Government to prescribe a residential criterion for employment to public posts. However, its applicability to the private sector is uncertain.
  • Industries affected:  The industry may feel aggrieved that the residential requirement may adversely affect the hiring of talent from outside Haryana.
  • Violation of Fundamental Rights:
    • The law impinges individual rights as it restricts his/her freedom of movement, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country, and the right to carry on any occupation.
  • Exemption clause: The Act provides for exemption to any employer if an adequate number of local candidates are not available in terms of skill, qualification and proficiency.
  • Expiration: The act will cease to operate in 10 years.

Way Forward:

  • Rather than using the tool of Reservation as a solution to reduce unemployment, the states should address the underlying cause.
  • The state of labour economy in India is largely driven by large-scale migration in search of employment. This is mainly due to the demand for Rapid urbanisation and the agrarian situation.
  • Addressing the wide spread disparities between the urban and rural areas and between advanced States and backward ones will help in resolving the issue.

-Source: The Hindu

Being thin-skinned


India lodged a diplomatic protest with Singapore over Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s remarks about the number of Indian lawmakers facing criminal charges pending against them.


GS-II: International relations

Dimensions of the Article:

  1. What is the issue?
  2. What the protest was meant to achieve?
  3. The Bigger question
  4. Way Forward

What is the issue?

  • India protested against Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsein Loong’s remarks in the city state’s assembly that “Nehru’s India has become one where … almost half the MPs in the Lok Sabha have criminal charges pending against them, including charges of rape and murder”, saying they were “uncalled for”.
  • The remark was made in the context of declining parliamentary standards during a debate sparked by accusations of lying against a member of the opposition in Singapore.
  • The criticism was unexpected by the Government of India from Singapore, a country that shares strategic partnership with India and are linked by trade and cultural ties.
  • There is a lot of speculations about the objections raised by India, which also includes political reasons.

What the protest was meant to achieve?

  • As a matter of fact, many of the winners of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections have criminal charges against them.
  • Data from the Association of Democratic Reforms:
    • It analyses the affidavits of candidates every election.
    • It found that- 233 winners in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, or 43 per cent,had self declared criminal charges against themselves, and of these, 159 had self declared serious criminal cases.
  • India would rather objected the remarks by conveying that it will not take lying down insults to its democratically elected Parliament from the leader of a country that is hardly democratic, even if that country is a friend.
  • India could have pointed out the merit that mandates self-declaration of criminal charges in the election affidavits, which is a progressive step that empowers the voters to make better choices.

The Bigger question:

  • India has recently summoned many ambassadors in the recent past to question them on so-called “anti-India” statements made in their countries not just by political leaders but even by private entities or individuals.
  • The Ministry of External Affairs has even used  social media platforms to shout down critics abroad, complete with hashtags.
  • Recently India gave its stern opposition to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for its comments on the hijab row in Karnataka.
  • India is a country that aspires to be treated as a global power and being sensitive to such criticisms does not hold the key.

Way Forward:

  • The Government could have won credit domestically for standing up to critics outside, but India should know that it wins no respect internationally when it does this.
  • The reaction, as seen by many, does not send out a message of strength, but the opposite — it only makes itself look insecure.

-Source: The Indian Express

February 2024