Gangtok, 9th April: The Sikkim High Court has upheld the policy denying Certificate of Identification (COI) to children of Sikkimese women married to non-Sikkimese men, delivering a significant ruling on 6th April 2026. A Single Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai dismissed a writ petition filed by over 100 women in the case Puspa Mishra & Others vs State of Sikkim.
The petitioners had challenged a 2018 government notification, seeking directions to grant COI to their children, ensure equal access to government employment, and secure inheritance rights over immovable property. They argued that the denial of such rights was discriminatory and violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21.
However, the Court rejected these claims, emphasizing Sikkim’s unique historical and constitutional framework. It noted that under Article 371F of the Constitution, laws that existed prior to Sikkim’s merger with India in 1975 continue to remain valid and enjoy special protection.
Referring to the Sikkim Subject Regulation, 1961, the Court observed that a Sikkimese woman marrying a non-Sikkimese does not retain the same “Sikkim Subject” status, which directly impacts the eligibility of her children for COI. The Court held that the distinction between Sikkim Subjects and non-Sikkimese persons is rooted in historical, social, and legal considerations, and therefore does not violate constitutional provisions.
Addressing allegations of gender discrimination, the Court clarified that while equality is a fundamental right, the law permits reasonable classification. It ruled that the existing framework aims to preserve Sikkim’s demographic structure, cultural identity, and historical context, making the classification legally valid.
The Court further stated that although such children are not entitled to COI under current rules, they are not entirely deprived of rights. They may obtain Residential Certificates (RC), which allow access to various state benefits, including education, healthcare, and limited property rights.
Concluding that the matter falls within the domain of legislative policy, the Court held that it cannot intervene in such issues. It stated that any change must come through legislative or executive action, and dismissed the petition as “devoid of merit.”
