Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Haryana's 75% Local Job Quota Act Struck Down: P&H High Court Declared Unconstitutional Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 To Upholds Constitutional Morality and National Unity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, unconstitutional, upholding the fundamental principles of equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of profession enshrined in the Constitution of India. The Act, which mandated a 75% job reservation for local candidates in the private sector, faced severe legal scrutiny and was ultimately deemed to be in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution.

Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, in their detailed judgment, observed, "The Act infringes on the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of profession," emphasizing the need to uphold the Doctrine of Basic Structure. The court unequivocally stated that the legislation's regionalist approach was detrimental to national unity and integration.

The judgment also highlighted the discriminatory nature of the provisions based on domicile or resident status for employment in the private sector. It underscored the unconstitutional implications of such policies, stating, "Discriminatory provisions based on domicile or resident status for employment in the private sector go against the Constitution."

Addressing the issue of freedom of profession, the court observed that the Act unduly restricted the freedom of private employers, conflicting with Article 19(1)(g). The court's stance was clear: "The restrictions imposed are not reasonable or justifiable under constitutional standards."

In a significant commentary on national integration, the court noted that the Act's approach was contrary to the constitutional mandate of national unity, stating, "The Act's regionalist approach is detrimental to national unity."

This judgment is a significant affirmation of constitutional rights and principles, particularly in the context of employment and non-discrimination. The court's decision to strike down the Act serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional morality and the importance of national integration in legislative policies.

The ruling has widespread implications for similar legislations across the country, setting a precedent for the examination of the constitutionality of state employment laws that may potentially infringe on fundamental rights and freedoms. The decision has been welcomed by legal experts and is seen as a reinforcement of the constitutional promise of equality and non-discrimination for all citizens, irrespective of their state of domicile or residence.

Date of Decision: 17 November  2023

IMT Industrial Association and another VS State of Haryana and another

Latest Legal News