1993 (2) TMI 333 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a seat can be earmarked in the Legislature of a State after its complete merger in India for a representative of a group of religious institutions to be elected by them.
2. Whether seats can be reserved in favor of a particular tribe far in excess of its population.
3. Whether the terms and conditions of Sikkim's admission into the Indian Union are justiciable.
4. Whether the impugned provisions violate the basic features of the Constitution, including democracy and secularism.
5. Whether the reservation of seats for Bhutias-Lepchas and Sanghas is consistent with Article 371-F and other constitutional provisions.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether a seat can be earmarked in the Legislature of a State after its complete merger in India for a representative of a group of religious institutions to be elected by them:
The court held that the reservation of a seat for the Sangha, a Buddhist monastic order, is unconstitutional. This reservation violates Articles 15(1) and 325 of the Constitution by discriminating against non-Buddhists on the ground only of religion and by providing for separate electorates based on religion. The court emphasized that the secular character of the Republic, a basic feature of the Constitution, cannot be compromised.

Issue 2: Whether seats can be reserved in favor of a particular tribe far in excess of its population:
The reservation of twelve seats for Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha origin was challenged on the grounds of violating Article 14 and Article 332(3) of the Constitution. The court held that while the reservation deviates from the proportionality principle in Article 332(3), it is justified under Article 371-F(f) to protect the rights and interests of different sections of the population of Sikkim. The court found that the reservation of 38% of the seats for Bhutias-Lepchas, who constitute about 25% of the population, does not transgress constitutional limits and is not unconstitutional.

Issue 3: Whether the terms and conditions of Sikkim's admission into the Indian Union are justiciable:
The court rejected the argument that the terms and conditions of Sikkim's admission are non-justiciable political questions. It held that the power of Parliament under Article 2 to admit new States into the Union is subject to constitutional limitations and cannot alter the basic features of the Constitution. The court affirmed its jurisdiction to review the validity of the terms and conditions of Sikkim's admission.

Issue 4: Whether the impugned provisions violate the basic features of the Constitution, including democracy and secularism:
The court held that the reservation of seats for Bhutias-Lepchas and Sanghas does not violate the basic feature of democracy. However, the reservation of a seat for the Sangha, based on religious considerations, violates the secular character of the Constitution. The court emphasized that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and any provision that compromises it is unconstitutional.

Issue 5: Whether the reservation of seats for Bhutias-Lepchas and Sanghas is consistent with Article 371-F and other constitutional provisions:
The court found that the reservation of seats for Bhutias-Lepchas is consistent with Article 371-F(f) and necessary to protect their rights and interests. However, the reservation of a seat for the Sangha is not justified under Article 371-F and violates Articles 15(1) and 325 of the Constitution. The court struck down the provisions related to the Sangha seat as unconstitutional.

Conclusion:
The court declared the provisions related to the Sangha seat unconstitutional and upheld the reservation of seats for Bhutias-Lepchas. The petitions were partly allowed, and the concerned authorities were directed to take immediate steps to rectify the unconstitutional provisions.