The Sikkim High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging state government restrictions that prevent the children of Sikkimese women married to non-Sikkimese men from inheriting maternal property or obtaining a Certificate of Identification (COI).
In a significant judgment addressing the intersection of gender equality and the state’s unique constitutional protections, Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai ruled that the special status of Sikkim under Article 371F of the Constitution of India safeguards pre-merger laws, including those governing the status of “Sikkim Subjects.”
The legal challenge was initiated by Pushpa Mishra and over 100 other women who sought the court’s intervention against a 2018 state government notification. This notification barred their children from receiving COIs and inheriting maternal immovable property.
The petitioners argued that these restrictions were discriminatory and violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14 (Equality before law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment), 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.), and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty). They requested the court to direct the state government to grant their children eligibility for COIs, access to government employment, and inheritance rights.
The court focused heavily on the historical and constitutional context of Sikkim’s merger with India in 1975. Justice Rai emphasized that Article 371F was specifically designed to protect the existing laws and social fabric of the state.
“All the legal provisions in force prior to Sikkim’s merger with India in 1975 remain protected and enforceable,” the court observed.
The judgment referred to the Sikkim Subject Regulation, 1961, noting that under this framework, a Sikkimese woman does not retain the same status regarding her children’s rights if she marries a non-Sikkimese man. This historical regulation remains the benchmark for determining COI eligibility.
Addressing the petitioners’ claims of gender bias, the court clarified that while equality is a fundamental right, the law allows for “reasonable classification” based on historical and legal factors. Justice Rai noted that the distinction between “Sikkim Subjects” and non-Sikkimese persons is a valid legal classification within the context of the state’s unique history and does not violate constitutional provisions.
The court did, however, point out a middle ground for the affected families. While the children in question are ineligible for a COI—which is required for certain exclusive rights—they remain eligible for a Residential Certificate (RC). The RC provides access to education, various state-level benefits, and certain limited entitlements regarding property.
The High Court ultimately determined that the grievances raised by the petitioners are matters of policy rather than judicial interpretation. The court held that any modification to the 2018 notification or the underlying system of identification would require a legislative change.
“The issues arising out of the state government notification of 2018 fall in the domain of the policymakers and not that of the judiciary,” the court stated, dismissing the petition and advising that any systemic changes must come through the legislative process.
