Editorial

Source: Hindustan Times

Introduction

Recently, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan while hearing the case of IMT Industrial Association and another v. State of Haryana and another held that the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 giving domicile reservation unconstitutional.

The bench observed while invalidating the statute that “Freedom given under Article 19 of the Constitution of India could not be taken away and the impugned provisions are falling foul and are liable to be declared unconstitutional as a wall could not be built around by the State and the spirit and sole of the oneness of the Constitution of India could not be curtailed by the parochial limited vision of the State”.

What is the Role of Article 35 in the Judgment?

• While discussing the stance of Article 35 the court observed that “There is a specific bar to the legislature of the State not to make any laws in respect of the matters which are under Article 16 (3). The same further provides that there has to be equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Clause (i) of Article 35 states that Parliament shall have, and the Legislature of a State shall not have, power to make laws (i) with respect to any of the matters which under clause (3) of Article 16, clause (3) of Article 32, Article 33 and Article 34 may be provided for by law made by Parliament.

What is the Role of Article 14 in the Judgment?

• As per the pleadings of the petitioner, infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is also alleged in as much as all citizens of the country would have a right to equal employment, to reside and to settle in the State of Haryana and the Act, thus, represents a serious assault on the unity and integrity of the country and the idea of a common Indian identity.

What is the Role of Article 19 in the Judgment?

• The fact of the case mention that the petitioners lay challenge to the Act on account of the fact that it provides reservation in private employment and creates an unprecedented intrusion by the State Government into the fundamental rights of the private employers to carry on their business and trade as provided under Article 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India.
• The court held that restrictions imposed upon all types of private employers as defined under Article 2(e) are gross to the extent that a person's right to carry on occupation, trade or business is grossly impaired under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
• The requirement to register any employee on the designated portal within three months who was being paid less than Rs. 30,000/- per month upto 75%, thus, is violative of the fundamental rights protected under the Constitution of India.

Conclusion

The decision in the IMT Industrial Association case strongly supports the basic rules of our constitution. It firmly says no to narrow-minded actions that go against the key ideas of fairness, freedom, and keeping the country together. This ruling is an important example, highlighting the court's responsibility to protect India's constitutional framework and defend people's rights from unnecessary government interference.