SIBLAC seeks review of Sikkim local body reservations, cites Article 371F safeguards

The Sikkim Bhutia Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC) has called for a constitutional review of the reservation policy governing Municipal and Nagar Panchayat elections in Sikkim, arguing that the existing framework risks undermining the special safeguards guaranteed under Article 371F.

In a strongly worded memorandum, the organisation warned of a “silent erosion” of political protections historically accorded to the Bhutia-Lepcha (BL) community and urged the state authorities to realign local body reservations with the constitutional philosophy underpinning Sikkim’s merger with India.

The memorandum, dated February 23, 2026, was submitted by SIBLAC Convener Tseten Tashi Bhutia to the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary and the State Election Commissioner. It seeks a principled review of the methodology adopted in determining reservation in local body elections, contending that the framework must be harmonised with the special constitutional status granted to Sikkim at the time of its accession to the Indian Union.

SIBLAC stated that Article 371F, inserted during Sikkim’s merger in 1975, preserves specific political arrangements forming part of the constitutional settlement between Sikkim and the Union of India. The organisation noted that the reservation structure in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly reflects this unique arrangement, which was designed to protect the political identity and interests of the Bhutia-Lepcha community.

The memorandum referred to the Representation of Sikkim Subjects Act, 1974, under which 50 per cent political protection was provided to the BL community. Subsequently, under the Representation of the People Act, 1980 as applicable to Sikkim, 12 out of 32 Assembly seats, along with the Sangha seat, remained reserved — amounting to approximately 37.5 per cent representation.

Citing the landmark Supreme Court ruling in R.C. Poudyal vs Union of India, SIBLAC underscored that Sikkim’s political arrangement is constitutionally distinct and not strictly governed by population proportionality. The court had recognised that the reservation pattern in Sikkim flows from historical and political considerations linked to Article 371F, thereby affirming its exceptional constitutional character.

However, referring to the 2022 Panchayat elections, the organisation claimed that effective representation of BL candidates had reportedly dropped to around 8 per cent — a figure it described as a significant departure from the historical legislative framework. While acknowledging that Panchayat reservations are generally guided by Article 243D of the Constitution, SIBLAC argued that in Sikkim’s case, these provisions must be read in harmony with Article 371F.

The organisation clarified that it is not challenging the validity of any past election. Instead, it has sought a constitutional review to ensure that the principles governing Municipal and Nagar Panchayat reservations remain consistent with Sikkim’s special status. It also recalled a similar representation submitted in 2021, stating that the earlier concerns remain under consideration and should be examined alongside the present memorandum.

In its prayer, SIBLAC urged the authorities to review the reservation methodology in light of Article 371F and the ratio laid down in the R.C. Poudyal judgment. It further called for maintaining constitutional continuity with the historical safeguards embedded in the Assembly structure and demanded stakeholder consultation before finalising any reservation roster.

Addressing the issue, Tseten Tashi Bhutia said, “The constitutional safeguards that ensured the political survival of the Bhutia-Lepcha community are steadily diminishing from 50% to 37.5%, and now barely 8% in local bodies. This silent erosion cannot be ignored. If we do not defend our rights today, we may not have the strength to reclaim them tomorrow.”

He added, “The BL community and our elected representatives; the time to awaken is now, before it is too late. Let us act with unity, wisdom, and constitutional responsibility so that future generations do not inherit our silence. History entrusted us with safeguards for survival; it is now our duty to preserve them with courage and foresight.”