JUDGMENT

SHARMA, C.J.I.:—The two constitutional questions of vital importance which arise in this case are: (i) whether a seat can be earmarked at all 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, and (ii) whether seats can be reserved in favour of a particular tribe far in excess of its population. My answer to both the questions is in the negative.

2. These cases relate to the Constitution of Legislative Assembly of Sikkim which merged with India in 1975. They were instituted as writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Sikkim High Court and have been later transferred to this Court. The main case being Writ Petition No. 4 of 1980 registered as Transfer Case No. 78 of 1982 after transfer to this Court was filed by the petitioner R. C. Poudyal in person and he was conducting this case himself, and will be referred to as the petitioner or the writ petitioner in this judgment. During the course of the hearing of the case, Mr. R. K. Jain assisted the Court as amicus curiae and pressed the writ petition on his behalf. Transfer Case No. 84 of 1982 was filed by Somnath Poudyal as Writ Petition No. 12 of 1980 in the High Court, taking a similar stand as in Writ Petition No. 4 of 1980. The third case being Writ Petition No. 15 of 1990 filed by Nandu Thapa, also challenging the impugned reservations, is Transfer Case No. 93 of 1991. During the hearing, however, the stand taken by his counsel, Mr. K. N. Bhat was substantially different from the case of the main writ petitioner, and he lent support to some of the arguments of the contesting respondents. The case in Writ Petition No. 16 of 1990 of the High Court (Transfer Case No. 94 of 1991 here) is similar to that in Transfer Case No. 93 of 1991. The writ petition has been defended mainly by the State of Sikkim, represented by Mr. K. Parasaran, Union of India appearing through Mr. Attorney-General and by Mr. F. S. Nariman on behalf of certain other parties.

3. The relevant provisions relating to the impugned reservations are those as included in the Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951, by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Act 8 of 1980) purportedly made by virtue of Art. 371F(f), inserted in the Constitution in 1975 by the Constitution (Thirty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, and consequential amendments in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976. The writ petitioner contends that the impugned provisions of the Representation of the People Acts are ultra vires of the Constitution and cannot be saved by Art. 371F(f). Alternatively it has been argued that if the provisions of Art. 371F(f) are interpreted as suggested on behalf of the respondents, the same would be violative of the basic features of the Constitution and would, therefore, itself be rendered invalid. Another line which was pursued during the argument was that assuming the interpretation of the Act and the Constitution as put by the respondents is correct, still the circumstances do not justify the impugned reservations in the Assembly which are, therefore, fit to be struck down.

4. The case of the respondents who are challenging the stand of the writ petitioner, is that the constitutional amendment bringing in Art. 371F(f), as also the relevant amended provisions of the Representation of the People Acts are legal and valid, and having regard. to all the relevant circumstances in which Sikkim became a part of the Indian Union, the writ petition of the petitioner is fit to be dismissed.

5. For appreciating the points arising in the case and the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties it will be necessary to briefly consider the historical background of and the constitutional position in Sikkim before and after its merger with India. Sikkim, during the British days, was a princely State under a hereditary monarch called Chogyal, subject to Britis