- Trust our politicians to embrace self-destructive ideas that hardly serve the larger purpose of the nation. As experience shows, what matters most to many of the unscrupulous political leaders is to adopt issues that could potentially help in consolidating the vote banks. Even if such policies being advocated do not help in furthering the cause of the nation, parochial considerations override sensibilities and pragmatic understanding of the issue at hand. Populism and protectionism are the hallmarks of present-day politicians, and one such move in the news of late is to press ahead with local job reservations.
PC: Legal Thirst
- Many states have already made promises to reserve jobs for locals with only the percentages of reservations differing from one state to another. Note that the Supreme Court this week is expected to begin hearing a case that will test the constitutionality of Haryana’s new law that reserves 75% of private-sector jobs for locals, subject to a monthly salary cap of Rs. 30,000. Of course, Haryana is not alone in an attempt to promote nativism by making it mandatory for private sector entities to reserve jobs for locals. Andhra Pradesh’s assembly passed a similar law and last year Jharkhand’s assembly followed suit as well.
- Not far behind is election-bound Punjab which is all set to replicate Haryana’s approach with this idea catching on as one of the many election promises. Most worryingly, Haryana’s law has other alarming features other than the legal premise underpinning domicile reservation. The scope of the law covers not just corporations but also trusts, societies, and partnerships. Further, a designated officer is empowered to interpret matters in a way that is straight out of India’s discredited license-permit-quota raj playbook. Mind you, there are serious flaws in this law and similar ones passed by other states.
PC: DEVANSH MAHAJAN
- Domicile-based reservation in the private sector violates the fundamental rights of citizens from other states. Needless to mention, there is no legal case for it. Remember, from an economic standpoint, domicile-based reservation wholly undermines the spirit of other laws that seek to create a common market in India. Indisputably, labour mobility is as essential as that of goods and services as employers need the right to choose their workforce. The Union Government’s much-spoken schemes such as production-linked incentives (PLI) to promote manufacturing through private investments will be incompatible with attempts by states to erect barriers to labor mobility. Thus, it makes little economic sense and poor optics when GOI’s solicitor general argues Haryana’s case.
- The GOI should push back against nativism and open up the market for easy labour mobility. Not doing so will only encourage would-be nativists. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will resolve this matter soon by upholding fundamental rights. The private sector should be made available the space to make appropriate choices to ensure India’s path to economic prosperity. Therefore, Haryana’s misguided attempt must be rejected setting a precedent for other states to stay away from pushing nativism/local protectionism. States need to work with industry on structured programmes imparting skills to make local youth more employable. This will be a win-win situation for everyone concerned.
