The Supreme Court on Wednesday removed a reference to the Sikkimese-Nepali community as persons of “foreign origin” from a judgement passed last month, Bar and Bench reported.

On January 13, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna had held that Indians who had settled in Sikkim on or before April 26, 1975 – the date on which the state merged with India – will be entitled to be exempt from income tax.

Justice Nagarathna, while talking about the history of Sikkim, had noted that the Sikkim Income Tax Manual from 1948 treated everyone alike “irrespective of their origin”. There was “no difference” between “original inhabitants of Sikkim, namely, the Bhutia-Lepchas and the persons of foreign origin settled in Sikkim like the Nepalis or persons of Indian origin who had settled down in Sikkim generations back”, she had said.

The remarks led to widespread protests by citizens and Opposition parties in Sikkim. The state government later filed a review petition demanding that the reference to the community as being of foreign origin be removed.

The same bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the mistake crept in because the original petition had it. It said that although the petition was later amended, the modified petition was not brought to the attention of the court.

“The miscellaneous applications have been filed as if it is an error on part of this court,” Justice Nagarathna said on Wednesday, according to Bar and Bench.

The court had passed the order on January 13 on a writ petition by the Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim. The association had challenged the definition of “Sikkimese” under Section 10 (26AAA) of the Income Tax to the extent that those who were Sikkimese nationals before the state became a part of India in 1975.

The association had argued that the exclusion was discriminatory and contravened the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by the Constitution. The court held that the benefit of the tax exemption should be extended to all Indian citizens domiciled in Sikkim.

Also read:

Why a Supreme Court verdict has sparked statewide protests in Sikkim