CHAPMAN LAW REVIEW
Citation: Tania Sebastian, Government Imprudence and Judicial Decisions in Domicile Reservations: A Comparative Analysis between India and the United States, 22 CHAP. L. REV. 119 (2019). --For copyright information, please contact [email protected].
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY | FOWLER SCHOOL OF LAW | ONE UNIVERSITY DRIVE | ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 WWW.CHAPMANLAWREVIEW.COM Government Imprudence and Judicial Decisions in Domicile Reservations: A Comparative Analysis between India and the United States
Tania Sebastian
INTRODUCTION The labyrinth of anachronism relating to the concept of ownership of resources by the state that can be used by its own residents, the resulting burden on interstate commerce, accompanied by the rationale of reducing unemployment in the state, the impediments that affect the free flow of labor, and the constitutional defects in the state’s role and its function in the local hiring plan, are all issues that courts have to remedy. This Article compares the hiring practices and preferences of local residents in the United States of America (U.S.) with India. Such analysis is relevant as level playing field doctrines have been used indefinitely to justify specific reservations in employment. While reservations for backward communities come within the constitutional scheme of India, this Article probes into the acceptance and constitutionality of reservations in employment. Further, this Article looks into the constitutionality of vertical reservations and justifications given by states for these types of reservations. The continued litigation in this area, even with decisions of the Supreme Court of India striking down unjustifiable vertical reservations for domicile preferences, speaks volumes about governments’ imprudence relating to notifications for resident-based hires and domicile preferences given to residents. The Supreme Court of India has also been riddled with the calculations and implementation of horizontal reservations. Various state high courts in India have shown indecisiveness in their judgments with contradictory positions. These observations are made in light of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. In short, the United States’ justifications