Why Revisit?

SDF Party supremo Shri Pawan Chamling for the first time had spelt out the Party’s revisit stance addressing a gathering of about five thousand supporters who had turned into on audience after participating in a rally organized by the Party consequent upon the verdict of the Supreme Court of India dated 13th of January, 2023 case No. 59 of 2013 in the matter of Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim Vs. Union of India and Anr. This stance of the Party gradually prevailed into the hearts and minds of Sikkimese people,as the verdict of sure is going to obliterate the Sikkimese indentity hitherto protected and safeguarded by the constitution of our country under article 371F, that provides a special protection to Sikkimese people.
The Ld. Advocate General of Sikkim, Shri Vivek Kohli, not certainly by ignorance about Sikkim’s special status under article 371F of the constitution and about the historical perspectives in the formation of Sikkimese identity but apparently intentionally had filed an affidavit in connection with the case referred hereinabove. AG, Sikkim Mr. vivek Kohli, seems to have appeared in the supreme Court of India, not for Sikkim and its people but on behalf of plaintiff AOSS on his affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court as the Advocate General of Sikkim, P. 65, Para 41-42 reads thus: “On behalf of the state of Sikkim, learned counsel, Shri Vivek Kohli has fairly submitted that the State government don’t have any objection to the prayer of the writ petitioners herein to extend.. the benefit of tax exemption may be extended to all India citizens domiciled in Sikkim irrespective of the fact as to whether their names are registered as “Sikkim Subjects” in the “Sikkim Subject Register maintained under the 1961 Regulation.”
Pursuing the same line of logic, the Durbar employees and five private petitioners were also filed the case in the supreme Court challenging the constitutional rights granted to Sikkim subject Certificate holders. They had also challenged the provisions granted under Article 371F of the constitution saying that they are undemocratic and unconstitutional. However, the Durbar employees’ pleas can be considered as they were for the exemption of Income Tax, and they were the parties, themselves, but how can the affidavit submitted by Shri Vivek Kohli, who as an Advocate General of the State of Sikkim, submitting an affidavit so severely detrimental to the interest of Sikkim and Sikkimese can be justified? Why the content of the affidavit submitted by him in the supreme court missed the reasonable justification as per the special provisions granted to Sikkimese people by virtue of Article 371F of the constitution of India? And how come the Government remains unaware of such devastating affidavit filed against the rights and interest of Sikkimese people? Isn’t the Government in power vicariously responsible for such an act? of course, yes!
In fact, Central Income Tax was extended to Sikkim in 1989 itself but SDF Government since its inception in 1994, diligently lobbied with the Govt. of India and its concerned agencies, for its exemption to Sikkimese people under the provisions, special protection, rights and  identity granted to Sikkimese people by virtue of Article 371F of the Constitution. In this process, SDF leadership led by Shri Pawan Chamling had seventy three high level meetings conducted with the concerned authorities of Govt. of India. Memoranda from Government of Sikkim were submitted to the Vice-Presidents, Prime ministers, Finance Ministers, Concerned Union Ministers and leaders of opposition. The plurals  in all above is because SDF Government during its twenty five long years of governance had the opportunities to work with many Vice Presidents, Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers etc. during its five terms of governance in Sikkim.
In the final round of such series of meetings Shri Pawan Chamling as the Chief Minister of Sikkim had the final three rounds of meetings with then Union Finance Minister Shri Man Mohan Singh. Finally, the Govt. of India perfectly satisfied with the case for IT exemption for Sikkimese people put forth by SDF leadership, granted exemption of Income Tax to Sikkimese people. This was granted on the basis of distinct identity of Sikkim granted under the provision of article 371F of the constitution. This exemption was granted to sikkimese meaning thereby those Sikkimese who had Sikkim subjects and those who were in lot inducted in 1975 vide Govt. of India order No. 26030/36/90 I C dated 7th, August 1950 and order of even number dated 18th. August 1990. So, the Sikkimese who came under the purview of Income Tax exemption were the ethnic Sikkimese of Nepali origin, ethnic  Sikkimese of Bhutia Origin and ethnic Sikkimese of Lepcha origin and few others who happened to be the subjects of erstwhile Chogyal. So to exempt these ethnic communities from the purview of Income Tax, Section 10 (26AAA) of Income Tax Act was created. This clause clearly provided exemption to Sikkimese people thus:-
 For Section 10, Clause 26 (AAA), the following clause shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 1st day of April 1990, namely:-
26 (AAA) in case of an individual, being a Sikkimese, any income which accrues or arises to him-
(a)     From any source in the state of Sikkim.
(b)     By way of dividend or interest on securities.
Explanation for the purpose of this clause “Sikkimese” shall mean-
(i)     An individual, whose name is recorded in the register maintained under the Sikkim Subject Regulation, 1961 (herein after referred to as the “Register of Sikkim Subjects”) immediately before the 26th Day of April 1975, or
(ii)    An individual, whose name is included in the Register of Sikkim Subjects by virtue of Government of India order No. 2603036/90 ICI dated the 7th. August, 1990 and order of even number dated 8th. April 1990.
(iii)   Any other individual, whose name doesn’t appear in the Register of Sikkim Subjects, but it is established beyond doubt that the name of such individual’s father or husband or paternal grandfather or brother from the same father has been recorded in that register.
It is crystal clear from the references taken above that the IT exemption was granted to “Sikkimese” people and the definition was confined to, as provided in clause (i) to (iii), of 26 (AAA) above. Thus, the “Sikkimese” identity was safeguarded and “Sikkim Subject” for the purpose of Income Tax Exemption, was upheld.
Based on the affidavit submitted by the Advocate General of Sikkim, which as referred above, was not in favour of the ethnic sikkimese people but instead, it was in favour of the petitioners, supported by the documents submitted by the Durbar employees and five intervention petitions submitted by respective petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, delivered a verdict on 13th. of January, 2023, which diluted the rights and privileges protected under 371F of the constitution of India. Worst to worst, the wound that the verdict gave to the ethnic Sikkimese people was further worsened when, immediately after about 3 months on 31st March, 2023 the bill that came to the parliament on the basis of the supreme court verdict, was passed in the parliament, without any debate whatsoever and without any reference to the special provision for Sikkim as per the aricle 371F of the constitution of India. Passage of this bill in the form of Finance Act- 2023 and two more clauses added to Section 10 (26AAA) of the IT Act added the final nail in the coffin. Even the Parliament of India, a custodian of all its federal states, didn’t come to the rescue of Sikkimese people. It is pertinent here to refer the two more clauses that have been added to 10 (26AAA) of the Finance Act:-
(cl.iv) any other individual, whose name does not appear in the Register of Sikkim subjects, but it is established that such individual was domiciled in Sikkim on or before 26th. day of April, 1975.
(v)     Any other individual who was not domiciled in Sikkim on or before the 26th day of April, 1975, but it is established beyond doubt that such individual’s father or husband or paternal grand father was domiciled in Sikkim on or before the 26th. day of April, 1975.
The clause (iv) above, allows any individual from the mainland of our country who had been living in Sikkim since 1975 for IT exemption, clearly doing away with the special constitutional protection hitherto provided to Sikkimese people, were now at par with and equipollent with the rest of 140 crore brethrens and sisterns living in different parts of our country.
Clause (v) is more detrimental in its effect as, any individual of any country who was not domiciled in Sikkim but if his/her father/husband/paternal grandfather/or brother from the same was domiciled in Sikkim on or before 26th, April 1975 would be treated as “Sikkimese” and would be exempted from Income Tax. This clause, added with many central acts arbitrarily extended to Sikkim, without any consideration-and without any discussion in Sikkim Legislative Assembly, which is one of the most  powerful Assemblies among the States of our Country, have helped to evaporate the Sikkimese identity. The ONORC, Central Moter Vehicle Act, CAA etc are examples that have started working as agents of dilution of the Sikkimese identity and its special status provided by the constitution.
Why Sikkim needs to be saved?
Size alone is not the standard to measure the gravity of a State. Though, tiny in size, Sikkim has a glorious history. Situated on the lap of Mt. Kanchandzonga, the guardian deity of Sikkimese people, it in surrounded by China in the north, Bhutan in the east and Nepal in the west. Buffered between two big brothers of Asia, since its existence  as a tiny Himalayan Kingdom about three and half a centuries ago, it has gone through many ups and downs in its transitional journey along the lane of history till its merger in the Indian union in 1975 by the 36th amendment of the Constitution of India. Sikkim, in a way or other, all through the different patches in history was under painful compulsions to serve the interest of the one or the other, in the garb of some treaties or agreements etc. be it with the colonial  India, be it with China, or be it with the aggressive Gurkhas of neighbouring Nepal and even Bhutan.
Hence, with such history on the background and now one of the most peaceful States of India (though not so as it used to be for the last four and more years), despite its most strategic location as bounded by the boarders of three countries, Sikkim now is in want of its constitutional safeguard from its custodian ie, the Union Government of India, the parliament and the constitution of the country.
Hence, the revisit stance of SDF leadership
Constitution is the custodian of Sikkimese people. Union Govt. is the custodian of Sikkimese people. The parliament of the country is the custodian of Sikkimese people. Sikkimese people, are the most patriotic people for the reason that they have surrendered their country happily to become the part of mother India, by referendum held in 14th. April, 1974. Hence, Sikkimese people have a deep faith on the Union government and our constitutional institutions. We love our country and we worship our constitution. But we stand to upheld our constitutional rights provided by the constitution. SDF party’s stance is “no more no less” than what the constitution of our country has provided us. On the backdrop of the dilution of Sikkimese identity for reasons referred in the paras above, SDF leadership has spelt out the “Revisit” stance, which comprises of the following steps:-
1.      Indo-Sikkim Treaty-1950
2.      8th. May Agreement-1973
3.      The Sikkim Government Act-1974
4.      The resolution adopted by Sikkim Assembly on – 10th. April, 1975
5.      Referendum held on – 14th. April 1975
6.      35th. Amendment of the Constitution-
7.      36th  Amendment of the Constitution
8.      Scheduled Tribe order – 1978
9.      Bill No. 79
10.     Finance Act. 2023
11.     Article 371F of the Constitution
12.     Protection of Special Status of Sikkimese people
13.     These steps are self explanatory but would be elaborated if need be.