Why is it hard to implement reservation in private jobs? Which states have tried this so far?

New Delhi: Karnataka government, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, recently halted a controversial bill that proposed reserving private sector jobs for locals. If enacted, this legislation would have mandated 50% to 100% job reservations for Kannada speakers in private companies operating in the state. This decision has sparked a debate on the feasibility and implications of such reservations in private employment.

Several states have previously attempted to introduce similar reservations, often facing legal and practical challenges.

Karnataka's ongoing efforts

Karnataka has repeatedly tried to reserve private sector jobs for locals. This marks the third attempt by the Siddaramaiah government, following similar efforts in 2014 and 2017. In 2020, the BJP government under Yediyurappa proposed 75% reservations for locals in Group C and D positions in private jobs, but it was never implemented.

Madhya Pradesh

In 2019, the Madhya Pradesh Congress government passed a law reserving 70% of private sector jobs for locals. However, the subsequent BJP administration did not pursue its implementation.

Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh pioneered such reservations with a 2019 law mandating 75% local hiring in private jobs. The law faced judicial scrutiny and was eventually struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Efforts led by other states

• Maharashtra: Proposed 80% job reservations for locals in 2019, but the legislation was never enacted.
• Haryana: Passed a law in 2020 for 75% local reservations, which was later invalidated by the High Court.
• Jharkhand: Approved a bill in 2023 for 100% local reservations in Group 3 and 4 government jobs, but it was returned by the Governor.
• Telangana: Initially approved 80% local reservations for semi-skilled jobs and 60% for skilled jobs in 2020, but later withdrew the bill.

What are the constitutional and economic challenges?

Right to equality

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law, while Articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination based on place of birth. These provisions pose significant challenges to implementing local reservations in private jobs.

Constitutional validity

The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on place of birth or residence, complicating the legality of such reservations.

Interference with fundamental rights

Reservations based on domicile can infringe on the fundamental right to equality under Article 14, leading to potential legal challenges.

Impact on economy

Local reservations can disrupt economic integration and deter investments, especially in regions with high inflows of migrant workers. Courts have highlighted the risks of economic and social fragmentation due to such policies.

Quota capping

The Supreme Court's 1992 Indira Sawhney judgment capped reservations at 50%. This limit poses additional hurdles for states attempting to reserve a significant portion of private sector jobs for locals.

Earlier judicial precedents

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently ruled against reservations based on domicile. Landmark cases, such as the Pradeep Jain case (1984), Sunanda Reddy vs Andhra Pradesh (1995), and Kailash Chand Sharma vs Rajasthan (2002), have emphasized the need for merit and efficiency over regional preferences.