Sangha (Vidhan Sabha constituency) is one of the 32 assembly constituencies of Sikkim, a state in the Northeast region of India. It is a part of the Sikkim Lok Sabha constituency.[5] As of 2014, Sonam Lama is the holder of this seat. His current term is expected to end by 2024.
This seat is reserved for the Buddhist monastic community (Sangha) of Sikkim.[4] Buddhist monks and nuns, registered with the 111 recognized monasteries in the state,[6] are the only ones who can contest and cast their votes for this Assembly seat.[4]
After the 1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum, Sikkim became a state of India and the members of the State Council at the time, were deemed to be the Legislative Assembly of the new state of Sikkim.
In 1993, a case was brought in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the reservation for the Sangha constituency and for the Bhutia-Lepcha constituencies in Sikkim, by [24] of the Rising Sun Party. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, judging that the Sangha had played a major part in previous Councils' decision-making and the reservation is not based purely on religious distinctions and is, therefore, not unconstitutional.[25][26]
^ abSunanda K Datta-Ray (1984). Smash And Grab - Annexation Of Sikkim. p. 166. Retrieved 15 June 2021. ...they were supported by Peyching Lama, who had been elected un-contested from the monasteries...
^ abAC Sinha. "Chapter 8: Sikkim"(PDF). ...election to the State Assembly were held in April, 1974. With exception of one Lepcha-Bhotia seat to a nominee of Sikkim National Party, the remaining 31 seats were captured by the newly formed Sikkim Congress.
^"R.C. Poudyal and ANR. Vs. Union of India and ORS"(PDF). main.sci.gov.in. 10 February 1993. Retrieved 20 January 2021. ...that the Sangha constituted a vital and important role in the life of the community in Sikkim and had played a major part in taking of decisions by the Councils in the past. [...] The reservation of one seat for Sangha to be elected by an Electoral College of Lamaic monasteries is not based purely on religious distinctions and is, therefore, not unconstitutional as violative of Articles 15(1) and 325 of the Constitution.