Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News