New Delhi: The Karnataka government’s attempt to introduce a quota for “local candidates” in private sector employment follows similar moves by several other states, namely Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Jharkhand.
Karnataka’s cabinet Tuesday approved a new bill that would mandate a 50 percent quota for such candidates in managerial positions and up to 70 percent in non-managerial jobs in most private sector establishments. This met with harsh criticism from industry, causing the state government to put the bill on hold. There were demands that the state withdraw the bill immediately.
According to the proposed law, anyone who is born and has a domicile in the state, can speak, read, and write Kannada, and passes a test, will be eligible for such reservations.
The Karnataka bill comes after the Supreme Court issued a notice in February this year to the central government seeking its views on the subject in a similar case, relating to Haryana’s own law that introduced reservations for local candidates.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had held this law to be unconstitutional, and the apex court is hearing the state government’s challenge to this ruling.
ThePrint explains the laws mandating reservations for local candidates in the private sector that were passed by Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Jharkhand in the past, and what their current status is.
Also Read: SC-appointed panel suggests felling 2,818 trees for road work in Taj zone, 1k fewer than UP proposed
Andhra law mandates similar quota
Andhra Pradesh introduced the Employment of Local Candidates in Industries/Factories Act in 2019. This mandates a 75 percent quota for local candidates in all jobs in local industries and factories, and projects that are taken up as private-public partnership models.
However, the law did not have a salary cap, which meant that it was applicable to all jobs in local industries and factories, irrespective of salary.
At the time of its introduction, the state government had said it would not fall prey to “vested interests” that claimed the move would hurt industrialisation. Industry should take care of local people who’ve given it their land, the government had said.
This law has been challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a writ petition as violating fundamental rights.
Even though the high court is yet to hear the matter completely, it has noted that the state law “may be unconstitutional”
In a similar development, Telangana has introduced 100 percent reservation for local candidates under a particular quota — the competent authority quota — in medical colleges established after the state’s formation in 2014. Students from Andhra Pradesh have challenged this before the Supreme Court.
Haryana law held ‘unconstitutional’ by HC, pending before SC
In 2020, Haryana introduced 75 percent reservations for local candidates in all private sector jobs that paid up to Rs 50,000. The Haryana government had said that the reservations were introduced to solve the issue of a large “influx” of migrants to the state who were “competing for low-paid jobs”.
Through the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, the state had mandated such reservations for all employers who had more than 10 employees. One could only seek an exemption from the law if adequate local candidates were not available.
Shortly after the act was introduced, it was met with staunch criticism from businesses, which said that the law violated their right to carry on a business, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. The law was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held it to be unconstitutional.
The high court had said it was beyond the powers of the Haryana government to restrict employers from recruiting from the open market, and that this violated their constitutional rights.
It was an “unreasonable restriction” on one’s fundamental rights and impacted the rights of persons to travel freely across the country, which is also guaranteed by the Constitution, the court had said.
It’s this decision that the Haryana government has challenged before the SC, which, in turn, has issued a notice to the central government.
Jharkhand launches portal, clarifies who is a ‘local’
Jharkhand, too, had introduced a law mandating 75 percent reservation for local candidates. In 2021, the state enacted the State Employment of Local Candidates in Private Sector Act, which applies to all shops, establishments, and industries that employ 10 people or more.
The law covers all positions where the pay is less than Rs. 40,000 per month.
Since then, the state has operationalised the requirement and launched a web portal mandating registration by establishments to comply with the law.
The definition of who qualifies as a “local” candidate also drew controversy. In response, the state government said that anyone whose ancestors were included in land records from 1932 would qualify. While the state governor returned the law citing constitutional violations, the state assembly ratified it and returned it to him.
Although the fate of the Jharkhand law remains unclear, it is possible that the SC may club the above matters to decisively pronounce a judgment on whether such reservations should be allowed.
Maharashtra attempts Maratha reservation again
In addition to the already existing 52 percent quota for other reserved categories in Maharashtra, the state government has also introduced a separate quota for the Maratha community in jobs and education.
The SC had set aside a previous attempt — not the first — to provide reservation to the community in 2021, holding it to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, which provides for equality before the law. Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has now provided assurances that all “legal obstacles” have been cleared and the law will withstand the test of the courts.
The Maratha quota differs from reservations for local residents as the former is based on the government’s power to make special reservations for “socially and educationally backward” categories.
Unlike backwardness being the rationale for Maratha reservation, the reservations in Karnataka, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh are all based on being a “local” of the state, which have been interpreted differently by the respective states.
The Maratha reservation has been accepted based on a report based on “quantifiable facts” by the state backward classes commission led by Justice (retd.) Sunil B Shukre, which conducted an “exhaustive study” of the community.
Notably, the move was based on “exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations”, which was one of the exceptions in the landmark Indira Sawhney decision that had established an upper limit of 50 percent for reservations.
Akshat Jain is a student of the National Law University, Delhi, and an intern with ThePrint.
(Edited by Radifah Kabir)
Also read: ‘Reporters published news based on imagination’ — ex-judge who quit panel probing KCR deals tells SC