Co-operative society reservations upheld as statutory and constitutionally valid for weaker sections and women in management committees.

Reservation and nomination of weaker sections and women in the management committees of co-operative societies under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and Rules, 1968 were upheld as constitutionally valid. The SC held that membership and management rights in a co-operative society are statutory, subject to the Act, Rules and bye-laws, and not an independent fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c). The scheme was found consistent with the Preamble and Articles 38 and 46, with adequate guidelines for identifying entitled classes, and it was not arbitrary or uncanalised under Article 14. The impugned provisions were therefore intra vires.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisions in the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 providing reservation of seats and nomination of weaker sections and women in the management committee of co-operative societies were constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme vested the management of every co-operative society in a committee constituted under the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws. The enabling provisions in Section 130 of the Act authorised rules relating to election of the committee, including reservation for women and members of weaker sections. The impugned Rules were framed to advance the democratic and representative character of the societies and to secure participation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and women in management where they would otherwise remain unrepresented. The right to be a member of, or to manage, a co-operative society was held to be statutory and subject to the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws, and not an independent fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c). The Court further held that the reservation and nomination provisions were supported by constitutional objectives contained in the Preamble and Articles 38 and 46, and that the scheme provided sufficient guidelines for identifying the classes entitled to representation. The challenge under Article 14 also failed, as the provisions were not arbitrary or uncanalised.

Conclusion: The impugned provisions were held to be intra vires and constitutionally valid, and the challenge by the respondents failed.

---