On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging a bill recently introduced by the Karnataka government, which aims to reserve 50 to 75 percent of private sector jobs for Kannadigas.
A Bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind refused to entertain the petition, noting that the bill had yet to be enacted into law. The Court deemed the petition premature and dismissed it solely on this basis, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the challenge.
The bill in focus aims to provide reservations for locals under the Kannadiga quota in private sector jobs, including "industries, factories, and other establishments" in Karnataka. The bill, titled the Karnataka State Government Employment of Local Candidates in Industries Bill, 2024, mandates 50 percent reservation for locals in managerial positions and 75 percent in non-managerial posts.
Amid controversy, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah clarified in a July 17 post on X (formerly Twitter) that the bill is still in its preparation stage and that a comprehensive discussion will be held at the next cabinet meeting before a final decision is made.
The petitioner before the High Court had called for the withdrawal of the bill until constitutional challenges arising from such a move were framed and resolved by the Court. As an interim prayer, the petitioner urged the Court to restrain the State from enacting the bill.
The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the bill is very similar to a law enacted by the Haryana government for a 75 percent domicile reservation in private-sector jobs, which was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in November 2023. The counsel added that the Kannadiga Quota bill may contradict the intent of providing benefits for local candidates.
However, the Court did not hear detailed submissions. After examining the case papers, the Bench dismissed the petition as premature.
"It was a legislative enactment that was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court ... (Bill) has not assumed the character of law. The petition is currently premature. On the aforesaid ground alone, without going into the merits of the contentions of petitioner and without expressing any opinion on merits ... petition is dismissed," the Court said.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy