Punjab and Haryana High Court strikes down Haryana law on 75% domicile reservation in private sector jobs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday quashed the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, that provided for 75 percent reservation in private sector jobs to persons domiciled in Haryana. [Faridabad Industries Association V/S State Of Haryana And Another].A division bench of Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan declared the law enacted by the State in 2021to be unconstitutional and violative of Part III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution of India.The Court said the powers of the State legislature cannot be to the detriment to the national interest and they cannot be directly encroaching upon the power of the Union government.It also held that State cannot force a private employer to employ a local candidate as it could lead to more such similar State enactments that could put up "artificial walls" throughout the country.It was beyond the purview of the State to legislate on the issue and restrict the private employer from recruiting from the open market for the category of employees who were receiving less than ₹30,000 per month, it ruled."The State cannot direct the private employers to do what has been forbidden to do under the Constitution of India. It cannot as such discriminate against the individuals on account of the fact that they do not belong to a certain State and have a negative discrimination against other citizens of the country," the Court said. It also opined that the Constitution bars discrimination against citizens relating to employment on the basis of their places of birth and residence.It further called the State's reservation law "a manifestation of the discriminatory policy that you are not one of us and, therefore, not eligible for employment.""The underlying object of the legislation, as has been succinctly put by counsel for the petitioners, is to create an artificial gap and a discrimination qua the citizens of India," the Court said..The Court also observed that the attitude towards individuals and the issues have to be read by the text and spirit of the Constitution and not keeping in mind the popular notions of societyThe constitutional culture has time and again held as a check against the tyranny of the majority, it added."The loss of authority by the Constitutional Court itself would imperil democracy," the bench said..The provisions of the Act fall foul of the Article 19 of the Constitution and are liable to be declared unconstitutional "as a wall could not be built around by the State and the spirit and sole of the oneness of the Constitution of India could not be curtailed by the parochial limited vision of the State," the Court held. It further said that the term fraternity, connoting a sense of common brotherhood, is to embrace all Indians and a blind eye could not be turned to other citizens of the country irrespective of the State they belong to. "Therefore, a legislative mandamus could not be imposed as was being sought to be done through this Statute against the foundational promises of the Constitution of India while turning a blind eye to the non-residents of Haryana who could not be treated as secondary citizens.".On violation of fundamental right, the Court further said the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions regarding the right to move freely throughout the territory of India or to reside and settle in any part or the territory of India. The Act as such cannot be said to be reasonable in any manner and it was directing the employers to violate the constitutional provisions, the Court found..It concluded that the statute was liable to fall foul of the principles laid down by the constitutional judgments of the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself.The concept of constitutional morality has been openly violated by introducing a secondary status to a set of citizens not belonging to the State of Haryana and curtailing their fundamental rights to earn their livelihood, the bench opined..Last year, the High Court had stayed the law brought in by the coalition government of Bharatiya Janata Party and Jannayak Janta Party. However, the decision was later set aside by the Supreme Court with a direction that State won't take any coercive steps against the employers The law was championed by Deputy Chief Minister and JJP leader Dushyant Chautala and passed in 2021. The Act provided for 75 per cent reservation for local youth in private sector jobs with a monthly salary of less than ₹30,000 from January 15, 2022. Short-term work and a host of primary services were later exempted from the provisions of the law.It applied to all companies, societies, trusts, partnership firm and limited liability partnership firms and any person employing ten or more persons or an entity, as may have been notified by the Government.Senior Advocates Anupam Gupta, Akshay Bhan with Advocates Bhavnik Mehta, Gautam Pathania, Sukhpal Singh Tushar Sharma, Amandeep Singh Talwar, Hiresh Choudhary, Surbhi Sharma, Ivan Khosa, Shivam Grover, Harsh Vasu Gupta, Siddharth Dias and Gursher Bhandel represented various petitioners.Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, Additional Advocate General Jagbir Malik and Advocates Shivam Sharma, and Uday Agnihotri represented the State government.Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain and Gurmeet Kaur Gill represented the Union of India[Read Judgment]