According to MR Madhavan, co-founder of PRS Legislative Research, this approach may breach the Constitution in several ways.
First, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry out any occupation, trade, or business. The Supreme Court, in the TMA Pai (2002) and PA Inamdar (2005) judgments, held that unaided educational institutions cannot be compelled to implement reservations except based on merit. Establishing and administering an educational institution was deemed an occupation under Article 19(1)(g), protected from undue government interference. While these judgments specifically address educational institutions, they underscore the broader principle of safeguarding private sector autonomy. Imposing mandatory reservations in private employment could similarly infringe upon this constitutional right.
Second, Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination in public employment on the grounds of residence. Article 16(3) allows for reservations based on residence only in public employment and only through laws made by Parliament, not state legislatures. The Supreme Court has previously struck down state laws that imposed residential requirements for employment, as seen in the 2002 ruling against preferential employment provisions in Rajasthan for teachers from specific regions. Extending such reservations to the private sector through state legislation would likely face similar constitutional challenges.
Third, Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) grant every citizen the right to move freely and reside anywhere in India. This implicitly includes the right to work anywhere in the country. The proposed Bill’s restrictions on employment based on residency and language proficiency may violate these rights, and its discriminatory provisions could be challenged under Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
Finally, the Supreme Court’s 1992 Indira Sawhney judgment capped reservations in public employment at 50%, a rule meant to prevent excessive compartmentalisation in society. The Karnataka Bill’s high reservation percentages could be seen as exceeding this limit without demonstrating extraordinary social backwardness, something that was deemed necessary by the Court in that judgment.
Given these substantial constitutional concerns, it is imperative for the Karnataka government to seek alternative methods to achieve its goals without infringing on constitutional rights.
Source: Barandbench
