The Sikkim High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of ‘Sikkimese’ definition defined for the purpose of clause (26AAA) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2023.
The bench of Chief Justice Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai has observed that the term “Sikkimese” defined for the purpose of clause (26AAA) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2023, is only for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961, and not for any other purpose.
The writ petition has been filed by a designated Senior Advocate, Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), challenging the vires to Explanation (v) contained under clause (26AAA) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was introduced by way of amendment in terms of the Finance Act, 2023, insofar as it deals with the definition of the term, “Sikkimese”.
According to the writ petitioner, the amendment to the definition of the term “Sikkimese” under section 10 clause (26AAA) of Explanation (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act of 2023, is in violation of Article 371F (k) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner contended that it is the responsibility of the State of Sikkim to ensure protection of the old laws including its preservation/protection as provided under Article 371F (k) of the Constitution of India, in public interest.
Without narrating or going into the details of other pleadings, as sought to be made by the writ petitioner, this Court is of the view that the crux of the matter which is sought to be raised by the writ petitioner in the instant Public Interest Litigation is required to be looked into and seen from an objective standpoint.
The genesis of the amendment which was introduced in terms of the Finance Act, 2023, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, rendered in the case of Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Others Vs. Union of India and Another along with Rapden Lepcha and Others Vs. Union of India and Another, reported at (2023) 5 SCC 717.
The judgment was passed on two writ petitions filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. One was Writ Petition (C) No. 59 of 2013, Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Others Vs. Union of India and Another.
The other writ petition, being Writ Petition (C) No. 1283 of 2021, Rapden Lepcha and Others Vs. Union of India and Another.
In the two writ petitions, the writ petitioners prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order, striking down section 10 (26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, more particularly, the definition of “Sikkimese” as contained in section 10 (26AAA) to the extent it excludes Indians who have settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26th April, 1975. The petitioners also prayed before the Supreme Court for an appropriate writ, order or direction striking down the proviso to section 10 (26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, insofar as it excludes from the exempted category, “Sikkimese woman”, who marries a non-Sikkimese after 01st April, 2008.
The petitioner contended that arbitrary inclusion of Explanation (v) of Section 10 (26AAA) of Income Tax Act, 1961, undermines the sanctity of the rights and privileges reserved for genuine indigenous Sikkimese as protected under Article 371F of the Constitution of India. The said Explanation (v) of section 10 (26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore requires it to be struck off from the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Finance Act, 2023.
The court did not find any justifiable reason to entertain the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Doma T. Bhutia Versus Union Of India & Another
Case No.: WP (PIL) No. 01/2025
Date: 04/03/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Doma T. Bhutia
Counsel For Respondent: Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
