Supreme Court Seeks Views On It Hearing Petitions Pending In HCs Against State Laws Giving Domicile Job Quota

"At the outset, I would like to proceed by saying that this order was passed after 90 seconds given for hearing. No findings. It is unreasoned order staying a statute", SG submitted. The SG submitted that it is a settled position of law that a statute cannot be stayed.  The SG pointed out that the quota is limited to jobs having salaries of less than Rs 30,000 per month. "75% quota is given in the lower rung because there is rampant lack of opportunities for local people", he submitted.

Justice L Nageswara Rao pointed out that he has read from a newspaper the states of Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand have also passed similar laws providing for domicile reservation which have been challenged before the High Courts.

"If the matters are before other High Courts, whether we can hear the larger issue calling for the papers from High Courts, you can tell us", Justice Rao sought the views of Solicitor General and Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and Mukul Rohatgi, who were appearing for the respondents, regarding Supreme Court hearing the issues.

While Dave agreed that the Supreme Court can hear after transferring the matters, Rohatgi submitted that he would need time to "ponder over" after consulting with the clients.

"You have come up against an interim order. We may ask the HC to decide after hearing the parties", Justice Rao told the Solicitor General.

"Only one request that the stay is midway. It was already implemented. Kindly have it on Monday", the SG requested.

The bench adjourned the hearing to Monday asking the parties to ascertain the status of similar issues pending in other High Courts.

The stay on the law came from the Bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain on a Writ petition challenging the vires of the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020.

After hearing Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India on behalf of the State of Haryana, the High Court admitted the Writ Petitions and granted a stay on the operation of the Act.

The petition has been filed by FIA, a premier industries association of North India, formed in 1952 by a group of enterprising industrialists. It challenges the Act for being unconstitutional and violating Articles 14, 15, and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petition also seeks a stay on the implementation of the Act until it is finally decided.

Averring that the Act is applicable to all diverse nature of employment, is not based upon intelligible differentia and rational classification and hence, is ultra vires, the plea further adds thus:

"The Act purports to effectively provide for reservation in private employment and represents an unprecedented intrusion by the government into the fundamental rights of private employers to carry out their business and trade, as provided under Article 19 and the restrictions being places upon such a right are not reasonable but are arbitrary, capricious, excessive and uncalled for."

Importantly, the plea argues that the Law fails to take into account practical commercial concerns and avers that the domicile criteria provided in the Act goes on to violate the mandate of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution which provides that no citizen shall be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of employment on the ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them.

In addition to the above, the plea states that the Act is contrary to the very idea of common citizenship for the Union of India and that it fails to uphold the federal structure of the Union of India which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.