SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 28

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) no. 59 of 2013
With
Rapden Lepcha and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Anr. - Respondents
Writ petition (C) No.1283 of 2021
Decided on : 13-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. H R Rao, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharukha, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Ms. C. Bharti, Adv. Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 10(26AAA) - Definition of 'Sikkimese' - Exclusion of Indian settlers prior to merger with India as well as Sikkimese women marrying non-Sikkimese post-2008 deemed arbitrary and discriminatory - The court held such exclusions contravene Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, being inconsistent with principles of equality and non-discrimination. (Paras 14, 17, 78)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Judicial review of legislation - The court emphasized that reasonable classification must align with the legislative intent to ensure equality before the law. (Paras 13, 13.2)

Facts of the case:
Writ petitions challenged the definition of 'Sikkimese' in Section 10(26AAA) as unjustly excluding old Indian settlers and certain Sikkimese women from tax exemptions. Petitioners argued the provisions were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unjust, constituting violations of fundamental rights. (Para 5-6)

Findings of Court:
The court found the exclusion of old Indian settlers and women marrying non-Sikkimese unjust and held the definition of 'Sikkimese’ should include all who settled in Sikkim before its merger with India, thus entitled to exemptions under the Act. (Paras 14, 17)

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the legitimacy of the classification in the definition of 'Sikkimese' and the implications of provisions affecting gender equality. (Paras 3, 4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the exclusions lack rational basis and do not meet constitutional standards of equality ensuring that all Indian citizens, including those settled pre-merger, must be treated uniformly under the law. (Paras 14, 17)

Result: The court struck down the challenged provisions, holding them to violate Constitutional rights and ordered amendments to the Act ensuring inclusive definitions. (Para 17.1)

Table of Content
1. challenging the definition of 'sikkimese' in tax law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. historical context and facts leading to the legal challenge. (Para 4)
3. arguments against the exclusion of indian settlers from tax benefits. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court's analysis of discrimination in tax exemption laws. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. ruling to include non-registered indian settlers in tax exemption. (Para 17)
6. final determination on legal status and tax exemption. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the respective writ petitioners – Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Others have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order striking down Section 10 (26AAA) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1961”), more particularly, the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10 (26AAA) to the extent it excludes Indians who have settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975. The petitioners have also prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction striking down the Proviso to Section 10 (26AAA) of the Act, 1961, insofar as it excludes from the exempted category, “Sikkimese women” who marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008.

2. Section 10 (26AAA), the vires of which is under challenge reads as under:-

    "[(26AAA) 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; or

    (b) by way of dividend or interest on securities:

    Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to a Sikkimese woman who, on or after the 1st day of April, 2008, marries an individual who is not a Sikkimese.

    Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, "Sikkimese" shall mean-

    (i) an individual, whose name is recorded in the register maintained under the Sikkim Subjects Regulation , 1961 read with the Sikkim Subject

    Rules, 1961 (hereinafter 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 the Government of India Order No.26030/36/90-I.C.I., dated the 7th August, 1990 and Order of even number dated the 8th April, 1991; or

    (iii) any other individual, whose name does not 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;”

3. It is the case on behalf of the respective writ petitioners that by excluding the Indians from the definition of Sikkimese, the exemption granted under Section 10 (26AAA) of the Act 1961, is not available to the Indian Settlers resulting in discrimination. There is no valid ground for discriminating against this section of the residents of Sikkim alone. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the writ petitioners that exclusion of Indians who have settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975 and consequently not granting the exemption granted under Section 10 (26AAA) of the Act, 1961 to the class of Indians, who have settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975 is arbitrary, discriminatory and the differentia do not have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question. It is also the case on behalf of the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 59 of 2013 that Proviso to Section 10 (26AAA), insofar as it excludes from the exempted category, “Sikkimese women” who marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the exclusion is based on gender.

4. Before dealing with and/or considering the rival submissions, history of Kingdom of Sikkim and the chronology of dates and events, which led to enactment of Section 10 (26AAA) of the Act, 1


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top