Jharkhand High Court stayed the law passed by the state government to implement 75% reservation in jobs under the private sector. It has evoked widespread reaction since it was termed a landmark decision on the aspect of unemployment at the regional level. The constitutional validity is a pertinent issue in the bill as well.Background of the Law This was the Jharkhand State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2021 that helped to ensure that there would be employment in the state by private sector jobs of any state for remunerations up to ₹40,000 a month. The law has compelled its private employers within the state to employ at least 75% of the local people within their workforce. It had intended to reduce the swelling unemployment crisis of the youth of Jharkhand by reserving jobs in industries, factories, and businesses for the domiciled population of the state. The employers were required to register their workforce details on a government portal and ensure compliance with reservations. Petitions filed against the law Several business associations and private companies challenged the law, arguing that it infringed on their fundamental right to conduct business freely under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners also argued that such mandatory reservation would deter skilled labor availability and investment in the state, thereby affecting its economic growth. They also stated that discriminatory practices would arise with this law since it emphasized domicile status and not merit or skill, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which is equality before the law. Court Observations The Jharkhand High Court, while granting stay to the law, said prima facie it throws up serious constitutional concerns. The court noted that it could have a significant ramification on the rights at the foundation and ease of doing business in the state. The Jharkhand High Court's stay of the law of 75% reservation underlines the role that judicial scrutiny has in seeing that state policies align themselves with constitutional mandates. Such a case is a reminder that although unemployment issues are very crucial to be addressed, policy measures must balance socio-economic objectives with fundamental rights and business interests.