Introduction

• This case deals with the issue of reservation in the newly constituted legislative assembly of Sikkim.
• This case where the reservation provided by the Parliament in the State of Sikkim and determines the concerns related to such representations.

Facts

• Sikkim was ruled by King Chogyal.
• In 19^th Nepali Sikkim's migrated to the Sikkim which created the disturbance among local public of the Sikkim.
• This concluded in the rapid growth of Nepali Sikkimese population in the State.
• The Bhutia Lepchas, who are the original inhabitants of Sikkim, were worried about their voices being overshadowed by the majority of immigrants in the state.
• Consequently, due to conflicts, the Chogyal established various councils to distribute power between the Bhutia Lepchas and the Nepali Sikkimese.
• Prior to 1974, Sikkim had a state legislative assembly with 32 members, where 16 seats were specifically reserved for the Bhutia Lepchas and the remaining 16 for the Nepali Sikkimese.
• A tripartite agreement was then enacted between the ruler of Sikkim and the Foreign Secretary to the Government of India, in conjunction with an agreement between the Chogyal and political parties, paving the way for Sikkim's accession to the Indian union.
• The Indian Government admitted Sikkim into India through Article 2 of the Constitution of India, 1950, leading to the 36^th Amendment to the Constitution and the addition of Article 371F of the Constitution of India, 1950, outlining special provisions for the state in consideration of its unique history.
• The petitioner, a Nepali Sikkimese, contested the reservation of 12 seats for individuals of Bhutia-Lepcha origin and 1 seat for the Buddhist Sanghas, arguing that these reservations were based on religious grounds.

Issues Involved

• Whether the Parliament has allowed to make reservations while creating the new State under Article 2 of the Constitution of India, 1950?
• Whether the reservations made by the Parliament were violative of the Basic principles of secularism and democratic nature of the Constitution of India, 1950?
• Whether the Judiciary have the power to review the conditions under which a new state is admitted into the Union?

Observations

• The Supreme Court noted that Article 2 of the Constitution of India, 1950 grants flexible powers to Parliament regarding the admission of new states, subject to judicial review.
• Despite the existence of the Basic Structure Doctrine, Parliament's authority was not boundless.
• The court emphasized that Parliament's powers should align with the Basic Structure Doctrine to avoid unlimited authority.
• Consequently, the judiciary must possess substantial authority to scrutinize the terms of state admission, particularly when Parliament deviates from established provisions.
• It was underscored that newly admitted states differ from existing ones, as Parliament can impose conditions as it deems appropriate.
  • However, these conditions must not create a system incompatible with the conventional institutions envisioned by the Constitution.
• In light of the constitutional principle of equality allowing reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, the court concluded, based on the prevailing majority opinion, that Article 371F of the Constitution of India, 1950 did not violate the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion

The Court upheld Article 371F of the Constitution of India, 1950 and its constitutional validity in the historical, political concept of the Sikkim.

Notes

• Article 2 of the Constitution of India deals with Admission or establishment of new States. It states that parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
• Article 371F of the Constitution of India, 1950 deals with Special provisions with respect to the State of Sikkim.