Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr.
Background
On 13 January 2023 this Bench had struck down as discriminatory the Explanation to Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, which had excluded Indian-origin old settlers of Sikkim (and certain Sikkimese women who married non-Sikkimese men) from the income-tax exemption enjoyed by other Sikkimese. Afterwards, the petitioners, the Union of India and the State of Sikkim all filed applications pointing out that the judgment had quoted from the original, unamended writ petition, because none of the lawyers had told the Court about twenty-five amendments made to the petition back in 2013, and asked for certain phrases to be corrected.
Decision Breakdown
The Court expressed displeasure that the applications were framed as if the Court had erred, when in fact counsel had failed in their duty to bring the amended pleadings to its notice. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, it made two corrections to Justice Nagarathna's judgment: it deleted a sentence in paragraph 10(a) stating that no distinction had been drawn between the original Bhutia-Lepcha inhabitants and settlers of Nepali or Indian origin, and it deleted the words limiting the exemption to "the current financial year i.e. 1st April 2022 onwards" in paragraph 77, so that, since the Explanation was held discriminatory, the exemption benefit applies from the date the Explanation was inserted into the Act. The Court refused the Union's and State's request for a clarification about Article 371-F of the Constitution, saying that provision's validity or interpretation was never before it. It also clarified that the definition of "Sikkimese" and references to the repealed Sikkim Subjects Regulations 1961 are relevant only for the purposes of the income-tax exemption. The review petitions and all pending applications were disposed of, with the order to be read as part of the 13 January 2023 judgment.
Lesson Learnt
When a law is struck down as discriminatory, the people it wrongly excluded are generally entitled to the benefit from the time the discrimination began, not just from the date of the judgment. Lawyers have a duty to place the correct, up-to-date pleadings before the Court, and a court will correct its own record where justice requires, even while calling out who caused the error.