DOES THE STATES HAVE TO FEAR THE BRAND NEW "UNION MINISTRY OF COOPERATION" ?

 

I). INTRODUCTION: 

Recently announced 'Ministry of Co-operative societies' under Amit Shah have been rising speculations and anxiety among various political spectrum, and is been pondered upon on whether this would also infringe on state rights and 'illegally' transfer itself the powers to conduct elections, audit finance etc in the societies in the states. 

Let us see what are the effects of this, depending on the existing legalities.

II). EXPLANATION: 

* First of all, 'Co-operative societies' fall under the direct control of State government only, and only they can enact laws and administer them. Then, where does the basic premise of justification for this infringe into territory comes from? It's as usual as the British rulers termed for in 'Doctrine of lapse' and most 'administrative reasons' which where lame. It's nothing but "inefficient administration" or "weakness" as mentioned in the Statement of objects and reasons in the amendment (97th Constitutional Amendment) which was brought by the then Dr.Manmohan Singh regime in 2011. 

* What is this 97th Constitutional Amendment? It dealt with issues related to effective management of co-operative societies in the country. It was passed by Parliament in December 2011 and had come into effect from February 15, 2012. It amended Article 19(1)(c) to give protection to the cooperatives and inserted Article 43 B and Part IX B, relating to them. Thereby, giving a Constitutional protection to the Cooperative societies, but there was a virus to it. 

* Any legislation involving the states, cannot be unilaterally passed and implemented. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court in 2013, have struck down certain provisions of the amendments, making 'ratification' of 50% from state legislature, along with the already present 2/3rd majority in the parliament, to enact laws for 'Co-operative societies' of State mandatory (acc. to Art.368(2)). But, this amendment doesn't say anything about the ratification needed (Art.368(2)) and simply infringes on state's law making autonomy. 

* The Union government, listed out their justification to call 'inefficient administration' of these societies, and pointed out some other reasons like delayed elections, lack of accountability, unapproved extensions of terms of office bearers and inadequate professionalism. So, the amendments came forward with some solutions like maximum 21 directors only to be allowed, fixed 5 year term for elected members and office bearers, maximum 6 months suspension period of a board of director and reservation of one seat to SC/ST and two seats for women on the board of every cooperative societies in India. Also, it mandates that, state should enact law, which falls under the 'framework' of union government's proposal. That is the reason, Part IXB was included so give a Constitutional recognition. That is, like Part IX (Panchayats) and Part IXA (Municipalities), Part IXB (CoOperatives) must also be in line with the Union government watch. The ultimate aim of the Union is to empower the Parliament to frame laws for cooperative societies functioning across the states, as followed now, i.e "Multi-State Co-operatives" only, and not the ones in state's jurisdiction, which is not possible. 

* In a recent SC Judgement, dated 21/07/2021, a three judge bench have upheld the 2013 Gujarat High Court judgement. Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice B.R.Gavai, Justice K.M.Joseph penned the judgement in a 2:1 ratio. 

Majority comprising Justice Rohinton & Justice Gavai have favored the Union involving in 'Multi-State Co-operative societies' law making conformity, whereas clearly rejected the same into a state's society. Whereas, Justice K.M.Joseph dissented in a wonderful tone, placing that, "..Part IXB cannot be severed into two and making one (State societies) immune and the other (Multi-State Co-operative societies) subjected to Union's framework, because the entire part is that of the State, giving a clause alone to multi-state societies. The latter (Multi-State societies) cannot have an independent life, and if the part concerns to be infringing the states, the entire part has be to declared 'unconstitutional'".

Since the 2:1 Judgement was passed, as of now what Justice Rohinton and Justice Gavai told was penned.

III). CONCLUSION: 

As of now, depending on the Judicial point of view, atleast they have recognised that this Amendment of 2011 is partially unconstitutional. Which means it can be applied and been conventionally applied to 'Multi-State societies' till now, that is to be continued. But, when a separate 'Ministry of Co-operation' been established, it raises doubts about efforts to infringe on state's individual society also. If the current regime of NDA, sticks to the originally designed reform measure as intended by the UPA in 2011, then it is acceptable, because it would just be a reform on administration, rather if NDA comes up with it's usual vested motives implanted within, then it must be opposed strongly. Even if they try to take control or make to fall align, they can do only these; 

i). Multi State Co-Operative societies can be made to follow the union's framework 

ii). State's Co-Operative societies cannot be touched or made to fall into Union's framework, even if they do so, they need 2/3rd majority in parliament along with 50% ratification of State legislatures, which is not at all possible.