What's New :
22nd July 2024 (10 Topics)

Karnataka’s domicile quota in jobs Bill

Context

The issue of job reservations for local candidates in the private sector has sparked debate and legal challenges in India, particularly following recent legislative actions by states like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana. These states have attempted to mandate quotas for local residents in private sector jobs, raising constitutional questions and facing opposition from various quarters.

Domicile-based reservations&Challenges

In India, the debate over job quotas for local candidates in the private sector has stirred legal and constitutional discussions:

  • Constitutional Guarantees and Affirmative Action:
    • The Indian Constitution upholds fundamental rights such as freedom to move and settle anywhere within the country (Article 19).
    • Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, forming the basis for affirmative action laws.
  • Affirmative Action Laws under Article 16:
    • Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in public employment and allows states to reserve posts for backward classes not adequately represented.
    • States can prescribe residence requirements, but not based solely on place of birth, to ensure fair representation in state services.
  • Legal Challenges and Court Views on Domicile Quotas:
    • Courts have consistently struck down laws imposing domicile quotas in public employment beyond permissible limits.
    • Recent cases in Andhra Pradesh and Haryana attempting to enforce domicile quotas in the private sector have faced constitutional scrutiny.
    • The Supreme Court has highlighted concerns that such quotas may foster regionalism over national unity and have populist appeals.

Fact Box: SC’s Judgments on domicile-based reservations

The Supreme Court of India has issued key judgments on domicile-based reservations:

  • Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984): SC allowed some preference for domicile candidates in public employment and education but emphasized it should not be absolute. Ensured that merit and efficiency are not compromised by domicile preferences.
  • Sunanda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1995): The ruling struck down 100% domicile reservation in postgraduate medical courses. It upheld that reservations should not undermine educational standards and merit.
  • Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2002): The ruling invalidated Rajasthan's preferential treatment to local candidates in public employment. It stressed that domicile-based preferences must align with constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Verifying, please be patient.

Enquire Now