Supreme Court Invalidates Part IXB of Constitution Amendment Act for Lack of State Ratification

The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court's decision, declaring Part IXB of the Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 ultra vires due to lack of ratification by the States under Article 368(2) proviso. The Court highlighted the mandatory nature of ratification for amendments impacting State legislative powers. While applying the Doctrine of Severability, valid parts related to multi-State co-operative societies were upheld, but provisions concerning State co-operative societies were deemed invalid. Justice K.M. Joseph dissented, contending that the severed provisions were not workable without the invalidated parts, impacting the intended uniformity across co-operative societies.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011.
2. Requirement of ratification by States under Article 368(2) proviso.
3. Impact on the legislative powers of State Legislatures under Article 246(3) and Entry 32 List II.
4. Application of the Doctrine of Severability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011:
The Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 introduced Part IXB under the chapter heading 'The Co-operative Societies'. The amendment aimed to ensure democratic, autonomous, and professional functioning of co-operative societies. The Gujarat High Court declared Part IXB ultra vires for want of ratification by the State Legislatures under Article 368(2) proviso. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the amendment significantly impacted the exclusive legislative power of the States under Entry 32 List II.

2. Requirement of Ratification by States under Article 368(2) Proviso:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedural requirement under Article 368(2) proviso was mandatory. The amendment, affecting the legislative powers of the States, required ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States. The failure to obtain such ratification rendered the amendment non est. The Court cited previous constitutional amendments like the 73rd and 74th Amendments, which were ratified by the States, reinforcing the necessity of ratification for amendments impacting State powers.

3. Impact on the Legislative Powers of State Legislatures under Article 246(3) and Entry 32 List II:
The Court noted that the amendment introduced several provisions that curtailed the legislative powers of the States regarding co-operative societies. These provisions included restrictions on the number of directors, reservation of seats, term of office, and audit requirements, among others. The Court held that these provisions significantly impacted the States' exclusive power under Entry 32 List II, thereby necessitating ratification under Article 368(2) proviso.

4. Application of the Doctrine of Severability:
The Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of Severability to determine whether the valid parts of the amendment could be separated from the invalid parts. The Court held that Part IXB, insofar as it applied to multi-State co-operative societies, could be severed and upheld. The provisions applicable to State co-operative societies were declared invalid for want of ratification. The Court emphasized that the doctrine allows for the separation of valid provisions from invalid ones, provided the valid provisions can stand independently and are workable.

Separate Judgment by K.M. Joseph, J.:
Justice K.M. Joseph concurred with the majority on the invalidity of Articles 243ZI to 243ZQ and Article 243ZT for non-compliance with the ratification requirement. However, he disagreed on the application of the Doctrine of Severability. He argued that Articles 243ZR and 243ZS, which applied the provisions to multi-State co-operative societies and Union territories, were not workable without the invalidated provisions. He emphasized that the intention behind the amendment was to create uniformity across all co-operative societies, and severing the provisions would defeat this purpose.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court's decision declaring Part IXB ultra vires for want of ratification by the States. However, it applied the Doctrine of Severability to uphold the provisions applicable to multi-State co-operative societies. Justice K.M. Joseph dissented on the application of the Doctrine of Severability, arguing that the provisions could not stand independently without the invalidated parts.

---