rc poudyal vs union of india Case Facts
- The post-19th century saw a large influx of immigrants from Nepal, which altered Sikkim’s demographics. The native people, known as Bhutia Lepchas, were worried that their representation would become less prominent as more immigrants moved into the state.
- Prior to 1974, the state of Sikkim was governed by a hierarchical monarchy headed by a King called Chogyal. In order to settle disputes, the King established councils to divide authority among the several communities.
- Under the previous system, 16 of the Legislative Assembly’s 32 seats were specifically designated as reserved for Bhutia Lepchas. Nevertheless, a number of political parties in the state pushed for increased democracy, which resulted in the three parties signing a deal that saw Sikkim become the 22nd state of India.
- Through article 2 of the indian constitution and the 36th constitutional amendment, Sikkim became a state and a component of the Union of India. article 371f of the indian constitution was added, listing particular provisions for the state that were made in consideration of its unique history.
- The Indian Parliament adopted a similar system, reserving 12 seats for Bhutia Lepchas, 1 seat for Buddhist Sanghas, 2 seats for Scheduled Castes, as well as the remaining 17 seats for the General Category by an amendment to the representation of peoples act, 1951.
rc poudyal vs union of india Issues
- Is it possible to secure a seat in the legislative assembly for a religious minority once a State joins the Indian Union?
- Does the legislature have the power to pass laws that reserve more seats than are necessary considering the size of the state’s population?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- In addition to the authority’s illegality, the petitioner/appellant’s attorneys argued that the use of the power to the extent that reservations were created for Bhutias-Lepchas had the effect of decreasing the worth of votes from Sikkimese people who were originally from Nepal. Equality and democratic ideals are destroyed by this. Article 170, clauses (1) and (2), stipulate that a state assembly shall consist of no more than 500 members, to be elected directly from territorial constituencies.
- It was argued that the Keshvanand Bharti case’s basic structure theory applied to the powers granted by Article 2 of the constitution.
- The 36th Amendment Act of 1975, which added Article 371-F to the Constitution, has not been contested by the petitioners. There was a contention that the interpretation of Article 371-F ought to align with the overarching principles of democracy and secularism found in the Constitution. The 1976 and 1980 Acts’ provisions, which reserved 12 seats for Sikkimese of Bhutia and Lepcha descent and one seat for Sanghas, were contested on the grounds that they violated Articles 332, 14, 15, and 325 and fell outside of Article 371F.
- The Sangha reservation violated the secularism principle enshrined in Article 15 by amounting to a separate religious electorate. On the other hand, a broad interpretation of article 371f of the indian constitution would render it unlawful and violate fundamental constitutional provisions.
- According to a submission, the State Legislative Assembly’s 38% seats were only allocated to 20% of the population, which went against the ideas of fair representation. According to Articles 330 and 332, disproportionate reservation does not guarantee sufficient representation.
Respondent:
- The respondent’s attorneys argued that because the questions raised are not justiciable and the conflict is political, the writ petitions cannot be maintained. One of the fundamental characteristics of sovereignty is the ability to conquer new territory. This can be accomplished via treaty, conquest, or other means, depending on what the sovereign determines is required. Any inquiries about this matter fall beyond the purview of politics and are outside the court’s authority.
- It was argued that entry into the Union of India is allowed without a constitutional modification and that the terms and conditions of such admission are not subject to judicial review, citing Articles 2 and 4 of the Constitution. Clause (f) of Article 371F requires that article 371f of the indian constitution be adhered to and that the contested revisions to the representation of the people act be recognized as lawful.
rc poudyal vs union of india Judgment
- article 371f of the indian constitution constitutionality was maintained by the Court, which concluded that Sikkim’s special provisions were required in order to incorporate the state into the Indian Union while maintaining its distinct historical and cultural character.
- The Court decided that the clauses were a specific measure to guarantee the political stability and representation of various communities in Sikkim rather than being discriminatory.
- The Court stressed that attaining socioeconomic and political justice was the true goal of the special provisions for Sikkim, and they did not conflict with the Constitution’s basic structure.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
