The 1932 khatiyan domicile policy has been a longstanding demand of a section of Jharkhand's people The 1932 khatiyan domicile policy has been a longstanding demand of a section of Jharkhand's people Following the Jharkhand High Court’s stay on the Hemant Soren government’s law reserving 75 per cent of private sector jobs for locals, questions have now arisen about the proposed 100 per cent reservation in third and fourth grade government jobs based on the 1932 khatiyan (land records) policy.
During his previous term, Soren introduced the Jharkhand State Employment of Local Candidates in Private Sector Companies Act, which mandated 75 per cent reservation for local people in private sector companies operating in the state. Three years later, the Jharkhand High Court imposed a stay on this law on December 12 and directed the government to file a response through an affidavit.
This ruling has revived the court’s previous judgment on local employment policies from two decades ago and raised challenges for the Soren government policy based on the 1932 Khatiyan.
To understand the context, let us first look at the recent High Court ruling. Anjay Pacheriwala, the petitioner challenging the law and president of the Small Industries Association, said, “The law does not even define who qualifies as local or what the criteria will be. Meanwhile, the government is repeatedly sending notices and requesting information about workers. This is creating tension between the companies and workers. Our demand is that the government first defines what ‘local’ means.”
A similar law was passed by the Haryana government, which was annulled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court last year. Amit Kumar Das, the lawyer for the petitioner in this case, referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment and stated, “This is unconstitutional and violates Article 16. According to Article 16, no reservation or recruitment based on caste, religion, colour, birthplace or residence can be made for any government job. So, how can there be a provision for reservation in the private sector?”
The Locality DebateSince the formation of Jharkhand, there has been ongoing debate about local policies. The demand for a local policy based on the 1932 Khatiyan has persisted. The Soren government in 2022 made the 1932 Khatiyan the basis for the state’s local policy and passed a bill in the assembly. The bill, which is still pending with the governor, proposes 100% reservation for third and fourth grade government jobs for locals.
Two decades ago, Jharkhand’s first Chief Minister Babulal Marandi had tried to implement a similar policy. In 2002, he introduced a domicile policy that reserved third and fourth grade government jobs for locals. He had said that only those with the 1932 Khatiyan would be considered Jharkhand residents. Before the government could implement this policy, the state split into two factions — long-time residents of Jharkhand supported it, while those who had migrated to the state opposed it. This led to violence, including arson and the loss of five lives. The issue reached the Jharkhand High Court, which eventually forced the government to retract the policy and led to Babulal Marandi’s resignation. Arjun Munda then became the chief minister and formed a three-member committee to define the local policy, but no further action was taken.
In 2018, 16 years later, Raghubar Das declared the state’s local policy, which recognised all residents of the state since 1985 as locals. However, protests followed, and when Hemant Soren returned to power, he annulled Raghubar Das’s policy and reinstated the 1932 Khatiyan as the basis for local eligibility.
The New Hemant Soren Hurdles To Implementing 1932 Khatiyan-Based Local PolicyThe critical question now is whether Hemant Soren’s 1932 Khatiyan-based local policy can be implemented in the state. Political analyst Sudhir Pal believes it will be difficult. “This type of local policy has been attempted before, and the current government knows what happened. That is why Hemant’s government has recommended placing it in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution so that it is exempt from judicial review. However, I do not think the central government will agree to this.”
He suggests that if the state government is serious, it can modify the policy to make it workable. He mentions that under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, states can reserve 100 per cent jobs in certain districts for locals under special circumstances. Jharkhand could apply this provision in its 14 Fifth Schedule districts, pass the law through the assembly and get the President’s approval, which could be an easier route for the government.
Pal also points to Maharashtra as an example, which created such a law under special circumstances and could be a model for Jharkhand.
Meanwhile, in the 81-seat state assembly, the INDIA alliance, led by Hemant Soren, won 56 seats. Since Soren’s second term began on November 28, his government has made it clear, as expressed in the governor’s address on December 12, that it stands firm on reserving third and fourth grade government jobs for locals based on the 1932 Khatiyan.
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) legislators and former Deputy CM Stephen Marandi said, “The government will respond to the court’s stay on the 75% reservation law for the private sector. If the court does not accept it, we will continue to appeal in higher courts, as this law is made for the welfare of the state and its people.”
On the other hand, Pradeep Sinha, spokesperson for the Jharkhand BJP, responded to the High Court’s stay and said, “You cannot impose something forcibly. Everything must be done in accordance with the Constitution. Hemant Soren's government is just doing populist work.”
Regarding the recommendation to place the 1932 Khatiyan-based bill in the Ninth Schedule, Sinha said, “It is not feasible, and the government knows the court will strike it down. They are just playing politics by claiming they will place it in the Ninth Schedule.”
BY Outlook Sports Deskleoxplay philippines