Context:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 as unconstitutional, nullifying the mandated 75% reservation for local candidates in private sector jobs. The court ruled that the law violates fundamental rights of both citizens and employers.
Relevance:
GS II: Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- Haryana Private Sector Quota Law
- Concerns Regarding Haryana’s Private Sector Quota Law
- High Court’s Ruling
Haryana Private Sector Quota Law
- Enactment:
- The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 was passed by the state government in March 2021.
- Reservation Percentage:
- Mandated a 75% reservation for local candidates in private sector jobs.
- Applied to positions with a monthly salary below Rs 30,000 (originally Rs 50,000) for a period of 10 years.
- Entities Covered:
- Applied to various entities, including companies, societies, trusts, partnership firms, and large individual employers.
- Employer Criteria:
- Employers with 10 or more employees were subject to the law.
- Central or state governments and their organizations were exempted.
Registration and Domicile Requirement
- Employee Registration:
- Employers required to register their employees on a government portal.
- Domicile Certificate:
- Local candidates needed a certificate of domicile to avail the reservation.
- Local Candidate Definition:
- A “local candidate” domiciled in the State of Haryana.
Objective and Intent
- Employment Opportunities:
- Aimed at providing job opportunities and skill development for local youth.
- Focused on unskilled and semi-skilled workers.
- Migration Control:
- Intended to reduce the influx of migrants from other states into Haryana.
Concerns Regarding Haryana’s Private Sector Quota Law
Legal Challenge by Industry Associations
Petitioners:
- Faridabad Industries Association and other Haryana-based associations approached the high court.
- Contended that Haryana’s policy of “sons of the soil” infringed upon constitutional rights of employers.
Violation of Constitutional Rights:
- Argument that the reservation policy infringed on the constitutional rights of employers.
- Private sector jobs should be skill-based, and individuals have a fundamental right to work anywhere in India.
Federal Structure Concerns:
- Asserted that forcing employers to hire local candidates violated the federal structure of the Constitution.
- Viewed as contrary to public interest and benefiting only one class.
Haryana Government’s Defense
Legal Basis:
- Haryana government argued that it had the authority under Article 16(4) of the Constitution to create such reservations.
- Article 16(4) allows the state to provide reservations for backward classes not adequately represented in state services.
Protection of Rights:
- Government stated the law was necessary to protect the rights of people domiciled in the state, including the right to life, livelihood, health, living conditions, and employment.
High Court’s Ruling
- Inspector Raj Criticism:
- Sections 6 and 8 of the Act, establishing reporting requirements and verification, criticized as creating an “Inspector Raj.”
- Inspector Raj refers to excessive government supervision in industrial units.
- Violations of Fundamental Rights:
- Court ruled that the law violated the fundamental right to equality under Article 14.
- Discrimination based on place of birth and residence.
- Freedom of Trade and Commerce:
- Violation of the fundamental right to freedom of trade and commerce under Article 19(1)(g).
- Imposed unreasonable restrictions on employers, irrespective of merit and suitability.
- Constitutional Vision Concerns:
- Court expressed concern that the law could lead to similar enactments by states, creating unintended barriers against the Constitution’s vision.
-Source: The Hindu
