Concerns raised over Nepali translation of Article 371F(f) released on Constitution Day

As India marked Constitution Day with the release of translated versions of the Constitution in nine Indian languages, questions have emerged in Sikkim over the accuracy of the Nepali translation of a key constitutional provision, Article 371F(f).
 

President Droupadi Murmu on November 26, released Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Punjabi, Bodo, Kashmiri, Telugu, Odia and Assamese versions of the Constitution, an initiative widely welcomed as a step towards expanding access to the country’s supreme legal document. However, scholars and political observers in Sikkim have expressed concern that critical mistranslations in the Nepali version could have deeper implications for the state’s ongoing debates on political representation.
 

Article 371F(f), a special provision inserted at the time of Sikkim’s merger with India in 1975, empowers Parliament to determine the number of seats for different sections of the state’s population and to create constituencies from which only candidates belonging to those sections may contest. The clause forms the constitutional basis for Sikkim’s community-based political representation.
 

Experts point out that the Nepali translation released by the Centre contains significant linguistic inaccuracies. The English phrase “sections of the population” has been translated as “भागहरू,” meaning “parts,” instead of terms such as “समुदायहरू” or “वर्गहरू,” which convey the recognised sociopolitical groups referenced in the original text. Similarly, the word “candidates” appears as “प्रार्थी,” a generic term for applicants, instead of “उम्मेदवार,” the precise political term used in electoral contexts.
 

Observers argue that while these may appear to be minor lexical differences, they could lead to serious misunderstandings in a state where political representation is deeply tied to identity and historical safeguards. Article 371F(f) is central to several key demands, including the long-pending reservation of seats for the Limboo and Tamang communities and discussions on the restoration of the Sikkimese Nepali seat. The same provision has historically facilitated reserved representation for the Bhutia-Lepcha communities and the Kami, Damai, and Sarki groups.
 

With Sikkim currently witnessing intense public debate over community status, reservation frameworks and seat reorganisation, analysts warn that inaccuracies in the constitutional translation could inadvertently shape political narratives or fuel misinformation.

They emphasise that in a multilingual country, ensuring faithful translations of constitutional provisions is essential to preserving public trust and preventing misinterpretation. As discussions on representation continue in the state, stakeholders argue that correcting the translation of Article 371F(f) must be treated as a priority to safeguard clarity and uphold constitutional intent.