Did legal worries rather than industry ire put Karnataka quota bill on back burner?
A cabinet approved bill requiring private sector companies to recruit the majority of their C and D category employees and half of their management people from Karnataka was withdrawn by the state government a day after it was announced.
While most think the key factor that prompted the bill's withdrawal is industry ire, legal experts are of the view that it is mainly the unconstitutionality of the bill that forced the rethink.
As the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution do not allow any kind of discrimination, including with respect to domicile, against citizens in terms of employment, the bill looks bad in the eyes of the law, say experts.
"Article 16 of the Indian Constitution stipulates equal opportunity for all citizens of India even for government employment. Going by this mandate, no constitutional body, including the government, can discriminate over employment opportunities in the private sector," says Sahadev Virmani, senior partner, Virmani Associates.
And, since Article 372 (1) mandates judicial review of all decisions or enactments by governments or any public body for that matter, this draft bill stands to fail in a judicial review, Virmani added.
Similarly, Article 19 protects people's right to reside and practise their profession in any part of the country.
Moreover, the Constitution is very specific on fundamental rights. Article 13 declares that any law is void if it contravenes any part of the provisions of fundamental rights. Thus legal advice later in the process appears to played a key role in the government’s backtracking on the decision.
"By reserving employment quota in favour of people from the state in the private sector, the government also restricts the freedom of companies in performing their business. So, the quota bill violates the constitutional rights of both citizens as well as employers," said a senior corporate lawyer and founder partner of a leading law firm in Mumbai.
Similar decisions in the past have been challenged and the courts have taken a stand that they put unreasonable restrictions. For instance, a proposal of the Haryana government -- Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020 -- was challenged in the High Court of Haryana. The court observed that it violated the fundamental rights of both job seekers as well as employers, though the final decision in this matter is awaiting a Supreme Court order.
Certainly the industry was up in arms against the draft bill of the Karnataka government. Industry bodies, including NASSCOM and ABLE, along with several industry leaders have strongly criticised the bill, which the government cannot ignore.
However, the Karnataka government has already brought in adequate provisions in the bill to allow exceptions in case of technical jobs as well as situations where a right candidate is not found with a Karnataka domicile, leaving it more worried about a strong legal challenge.
According to sources in the government, the concerned state ministries are currently in consultation with legal experts to make their case stronger, and the bill will be reintroduced soon with more clarity with respect to the legal aspects.
