Haryana domicile quota: SC asks if all related cases can be heard together

A signboard is seen outside the premises of Supreme Court in New Delhi, India, September 28, 2018. REUTERS/Anushree Fadnavis - RC1B5CE56370

The Supreme Court, on February 11, sought to know if pending challenges to various state laws, all providing reservation in jobs for domiciled candidates from the respective states, should be transferred to the Supreme Court and heard together.

The proposal from the Supreme Court came when the bench was hearing state of Haryana’s challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order staying the implementation of the state’s job reservation law.

The state’s basic ground for challenging the high court’s order was lack of adequate hearing given to the state before staying the law.

“The impugned order (of stay) was passed after 90 seconds of hearing,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court.

The solicitor general also proceeded to argue that any law passed by the assembly or parliament is presumed to be valid and cannot be stayed. The law officer also sought to apprise the court of the rationale behind bringing in a law to provide reservation for the domiciled candidates.

“There is rampant lack of opportunity for such candidates,” Mehta said.

MC Explainer: Haryana jobs quota law, the controversy and the legal tangle around it

Justice L Nageswara Rao, heading the bench hearing this case, highlighted that according to news reports, similar legislations have been passed as well as challenged in states of Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand also.

“There are three high courts dealing with similar matters now,” the judge said.

The similarity involved in the issues raised before the three high courts prompted the Supreme Court bench to suggest amalgamating all the cases and hearing them all together. The court asked the counsel representing all the parties for their position on this proposal.

While the solicitor general pleaded ignorance on the issue of similar legislations in other states, he assured the court that he would gather more information on the pending challenges. Mehta also said that, in principle, he was agreeable to all similar pending cases being transferred to the Supreme Court and heard together.

SC allows ED to rely on forensic auditors' report for charge sheet against Unitech ex-promoters

Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave, agreeing with the proposal made by the court said that, “the question is whether there is any kind of constitutional backing or not and another question is does it sow the seeds of disintegration.” Dave represents one of the parties that are opposed to the law on reservation.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing another party opposed to the law, sought time to “ponder over this”.

The Supreme Court will hear the case again on February 14 to ascertain if the challenge to stay on Haryana’s law for reservation for domiciled candidates in private sector needs to be heard by the Supreme Court in isolation, sent back to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, or heard along with the other similar cases.

The Haryana state’s law under challenge came into effect on January 15 and provides for 75% reservation in all private sector organisations for the local candidates. This law is applicable for all employment opportunities up to the wage band of Rs 30,000.

While the state’s rationale is to give a boost to the local youth in terms of employment, the industrial sector has opposed this move as being restrictive. Contravention of the provisions of the constitution of India is another ground on the basis of which the law came to be challenged when the Punjab and Haryana High Court was moved.

The high court, while agreeing to hear the challenge to the law at length, also imposed a stay on the implementation of the law. This interim order became the subject matter of the petition filed by the state of Haryana before the Supreme Court.