Haryana’s employment reservation law

Haryana’s employment reservation law

Context:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on November 17, declared the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, unconstitutional. This Act, enacted in 2021, aimed to secure 75% reservation for locals in private sector jobs in Haryana.

Relevance:

GS-02 (Government policies and interventions, Judiciary, Fundamental Rights)

Prelims:

Fundamental Rights

Mains Question:

Analyze the constitutional implications and the broader impact of the decision to quash the State Employment laws that provides reservations for locals, with a focus on the right to livelihood and the concept of common citizenship. (250 words)

Dimensions of the Article:

• Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020
• Violation of Fundamental Rights
• National Perspective
• Judicial Intervention

Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020:

• In November 2020, the Haryana government introduced a law requiring 75% of jobs with a monthly salary below ₹30,000 to be reserved for local residents.
• The legislation, applicable to various private entities- including companies, societies, trusts, partnership firms and large individual employers faced challenges, asserting its infringement on constitutional rights.
• The Law however, required employers to register their employees on a government portal and to obtain a certificate of domicile for the local candidates. And this “LOCAL CANDIDATE” could avail the registration by registering on a designated online portal.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

• The legal challenge contended that the reservation law contravened constitutional guarantees, including Article 19 (right to freedom, including residence and profession) and Article 14 (equality before the law).
• The court, in its ruling, examined the implications on the fundamental rights of citizens and the potential discordance with the foundational principles of the Constitution.
• State’s Defense and Legal Arguments:
  • The Haryana government defended the law, emphasizing its intent to safeguard the livelihoods of state residents amid rising unemployment.
  • The constitutional provision under Article 16(4), allowing reservations for backward classes, was cited to support the enactment.
  • The legal battle unfolded with arguments revolving around the balance between protecting local employment opportunities and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

National Perspective:

• Several states, including Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, have implemented laws providing reservations for local residents in the private sector.
• Exploring the national landscape provides insights into the diversity of approaches and the potential legal challenges associated with such legislations.

Judicial Intervention:

• The court’s interim order and directives to the Haryana government, coupled with the reasons behind its decisions, offer insights into the legal complexities surrounding the reservation law.
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to declare the law unconstitutional hinged on specific constitutional inconsistencies.
• Article 19(1)(g), addressing the right to carry on occupation, trade, or business was voilated as the law imposed unreasonable restrictions on the employers to hire local candidates.
• Additionally, scrutiny of Sections 6 and 8 of the Act unveils concerns related to excessive state control over private employers as it required a mandatory quarterly reports on local candidates and enabling authorized officers to demand verification.

Way Forward:

• There has to be a balance between addressing the rising unemployment situation alongside upholding constitutional principles.
• The tension between the economic imperative of safeguarding local employment and ensuring a level playing field for all citizens necessitates nuanced policy considerations. \
• Crafting laws that foster inclusive economic growth while avoiding infringements on fundamental rights emerges as a key takeaway.
• The broader theme of common citizenship, as envisioned in the Constitution, resonates the need to avoid erecting artificial barriers that divide citizens based on their domicile is emphasized.
• Upholding the spirit of unity in diversity becomes a guiding principle, urging a reevaluation of legislative measures that may inadvertently sow seeds of discord among citizens.