Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RC Poudyal and Ors Vs Union of India UOI and Ors 11122s930133COM169802
RC Poudyal and Ors Vs Union of India UOI and Ors 11122s930133COM169802
[1993]1SCR891
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Transfer Case (C) Nos. 78 and 84 of 1982 With 93 And 94 of 1991
Decided On: 10.02.1993
Appellants:R.C. Poudyal and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
L.M. Sharma, C.J.I., M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.S. Verma, K. Jayachandra Reddy and S.C.
Agrawal, JJ.
ORDER
L.M. Sharma, C.J.I.
1. 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 Article 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 cases himself, and will be referred to as the petitioner or
the writ petitioner in this judgement. 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 casein Writ Petition No. 16 of 1990 of the High Court
(Transfer Case No. 94of 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 Acts, 1950 and 1951, by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act,
1980 (Act 8 of 1980) purportedly made by virtue of Article 371F(f), inserted in the
Constitution in 1975 by the Constitution (Thirty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, and