Two veteran politicians on Friday expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s verdict that asked the Centre to get the term “Sikkimese” redefined.

The Bhaichung Bhutia-led Hamro Sikkim Party also emphasised that the judgment went against the special constitutional protection granted to the Himalayan state.

The concern was expressed by Bharat Basnett and R.B. Subba, who were one party of the applicants seeking the removal of the Supreme Court’s description of Sikkimese Nelapis as those of “foreign origin”.

The description and the directive to redefine the term “Sikkimese” were in the judgment that brought old settlers of Indian origin under the purview of income tax exemption which had originally been extended to the Sikkimese Bhutias, Lepchas and Nepalis.

“The dangerous part is that the term Sikkimese has been struck down.... Like I said before, who are Sikkimese? They are those who have Sikkimese Subjects (certificates) and their descendants. That term has been removed by this judgment. Now it has to be redefined,” Basnett said.

In its verdict extending income tax exemption to the old settlers who have been living in Sikkim since before its merger with India in 1975, the Supreme Court had said: “The exclusion of Old Indian settlers, who have permanently settled in Sikkim prior to merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975 from the definition of ‘Sikkimese’ in Section 10(26AAA) is hereby held to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hereby struck down.”

Basnett and Subba were given a warm welcome by the members of the Joint Action Committee (JAC) at Rangpo, about 40km from here, on their return from Delhi on Friday for approaching the Supreme Court to remove the mention of “foreign origin” in the verdict. JAC spearheaded the mass protest against the court verdict.

Basnett said as a third party to the case filed by the Association of Old Settlers Sikkim (AOSS) seeking income tax relief, he and Subba could not seek a review of the operative part of the judgment which only the state government and the Union government could do as the second party to the case.

The Hamro Sikkim Party and its ally Sikkim Republican Party, too, on Friday said the redefinition of the term “Sikkimese” was not acceptable to them as it went against the protection provided to the former subjects of the independent kingdom by Article 371F that was incorporated in the Constitution at the time of the merger.

“One of the two blunders made by the present SKM government in its four-year tenure was doing nothing when the definition of the word ‘Sikkimese’ who are Bhutias, Lepchas and Nepalis — all Sikkim subject holders — was being struck down (by the Supreme Court),” Bhaichung Bhuitia said.

Bhutia demanded the restoration of the Nepali seats in the Sikkim Assembly in order to protect the identity of the Sikkimese people. Till 1979, 16 seats had been reserved for the Bhutia-Lepcha community and Nepalis in the 32-member House.