Summary
The Court held that Part IXB, inserted by the Ninety-seventh Amendment, required State ratification because it substantially curtailed the States’ exclusive legislative field over cooperative societies. That mandatory procedure had not been followed. By a majority, Part IXB was severed and preserved only for multi-State cooperative societies, including those in Union territories. Article 19(1)(c) and Article 43B remained unaffected. Joseph J agreed on the ratification defect but dissented on severability.
Issues
- Whether the restrictions imposed by Part IXB required ratification under the proviso to Article 368(2), despite no textual amendment of the relevant legislative entry.
- Whether Part IXB could survive for multi-State cooperative societies and societies in Union territories.
Provisions considered
- Article 368(2), proviso (b) and (c), Constitution of IndiaRatification by at least half the State legislatures before Presidential assent was mandatory where the amendment substantially changed the effect of Article 246(3) and State List Entry 32. (¶¶ 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 36, 53, 54, 56, 60, 61, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73)
- Article 246; Seventh Schedule, List II Entry 32 and List I Entries 43 and 44, Constitution of IndiaCooperatives confined to a State fall within the State legislative field; multi-State cooperatives fall within Parliament’s field. Federal supremacy did not resolve this case because the fields did not overlap. (¶¶ 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 57, 58, 65, 67)
- Part IXB, particularly Articles 243ZI, 243ZR, 243ZS and 243ZT, Constitution of IndiaIts detailed constraints substantially curtailed State legislative freedom. The majority preserved its independent application to multi-State cooperatives while rejecting application to cooperatives confined to a Union territory. (¶¶ 6, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80)
Held
- A constitutionally significant change in effect is sufficient to attract ratification; altering the text of an entrenched provision is unnecessary. Significant expansion or curtailment of a State legislative field can attract the proviso without transferring that field to Parliament. (¶¶ 33, 36, 40, 41, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61)
- Part IXB imposed binding constraints on incorporation, boards, elections, supersession, audit and other matters, and terminated inconsistent State laws after one year. This substantially curtailed Article 246(3) and Entry 32 and therefore required ratification. Subsequent State legislation adopting those norms, prior consultation and the absence of a State challenge did not substitute for legislative resolutions ratifying the amendment. (¶¶ 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72)
- The decision rested on the procedural defect under Article 368(2). No separate substantive basic-structure challenge to Part IXB was decided. (¶¶ 33, 36, 73)
- The majority applied severability: Article 243ZR provided an independently workable scheme for multi-State cooperatives, unaffected by the State field. Part IXB remained operative only for such societies, including in Union territories; societies confined to a Union territory were not saved. A new contention concerning curtailment of Union List Entry 44 was not entertained because it had not been raised below. (¶¶ 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80)
- Joseph J concurred that State ratification was necessary but considered the multi-State and Union-territory provisions dependent on the invalid substantive scheme and therefore inseverable. This was a dissent on severability. The separate amendments to Article 19(1)(c) and Article 43B were not struck down. (¶¶ Nariman J: 2, 77, 80, Joseph J: 2, 4, 5, 13, 19–23, 27–32)
Result
Appeals disposed of by the majority: High Court judgment upheld subject to preserving Part IXB only for multi-State cooperative societies in States and Union territories.