- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Toguru Sudhakar Reddy And Another v. Government Of A.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was amended in 1991 by inserting an additional proviso to Section 31(1)(a), requiring the Registrar to nominate two women members (from women members of the general body) to the managing committee of specified classes of societies, with full rights to vote and participate in committee meetings. Alongside the proviso, Rules 22(c) and 22-A(3)(a) (added by notification dated March 20, 1991) were also introduced.
The appellants-petitioners challenged the proviso and the new rules before the Andhra Pradesh High Court as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and further contended that the nomination would take overall reservation beyond 50%, allegedly contrary to Supreme Court law in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The present matter consists of appeals by special leave against the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the proviso added to Section 31(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (and related Rules 22(c) and 22-A(3)(a)) is arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether nominating two women members to the committee results in reservation beyond 50% and, if so, whether such a limit applies in this context in light of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants-Petitioners' Arguments
- The newly added proviso to Section 31(1)(a) is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Rules 22(c) and 22-A(3)(a) (added on March 20, 1991) are similarly arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
- Nominating two women members would take the total reservation beyond 50%, which they argued was impermissible in view of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore.
State Government's Arguments
- The amendment was introduced to ensure representation of women in managing committees of cooperative societies and to encourage women to participate in management.
- A National Convention on involvement of women in the cooperative movement suggested reserving 1/3rd of seats for women in management committees.
- Although women were members of societies, they were not coming forward to contest elections due to campaigning involving factional and political considerations; nomination was adopted “in the first instance” to facilitate participation.
- On the stated facts for the society referred to: out of 826 members, only 29 were women; the managing committee consisted of 11 members.
- Women’s participation in cooperative societies in Andhra Pradesh had been minimal (apart from a few exclusive women-run societies), and nomination was considered necessary to prevent benefits being cornered by male members to the exclusion of women members.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M.R Balaji v. State of Mysore, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439, AIR 1963 SC 649 | Cited by the appellants to support the proposition that reservation should not exceed 50%. | The High Court held (and the Supreme Court found no infirmity in that view) that the ratio in Balaji was confined to reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and therefore did not invalidate the impugned provisions concerning nomination of women members. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court rejected the challenge to the proviso and rules primarily on the basis that Article 15(3) of the Constitution permits the State to make special provisions for women. It examined the scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and concluded that the impugned provisions were not arbitrary.
On the argument that nomination would breach a 50% reservation ceiling, the High Court rejected the contention, holding that the rule in Balaji was confined to reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
In the present appeals, the Supreme Court noted that it heard counsel and reviewed the High Court’s judgment, and found no infirmity in the High Court’s reasoning or conclusions.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, with no order as to costs.
Implications: The High Court judgment upholding the 1991 proviso to Section 31(1)(a) and the associated rules remains undisturbed. The immediate effect is that nomination of two women members by the Registrar to the committee (with voting and participatory rights) continues to be valid as per the impugned provisions. The opinion does not indicate that any new legal principle or broader precedent was laid down beyond affirming the High Court’s reasoning.
Order
1. The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was amended in the year 1991 and a proviso was added to Section 31(1)(a) of the said Act. The proviso is as under:
“Provided also that two women members shall be nominated by the Registrar to the Committee of such class of societies and in such manner as may be prescribed from among the women members of the general body of such societies. Such nominated women members shall, notwithstanding any thing contained in this Act, have the right to vote and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of the meetings of the Committee.”
The above quoted proviso was challenged by the appellants-petitioners before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground that it was arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rules 22(c) and 22-A(3)(a) which were added by the Notification dated March 20, 1991 were also challenged on similar grounds. It was also contended before the High Court that by nominating two women members to the Committee of societies under the newly added proviso, the total reservation would go beyond 50 per cent which is not permitted in view of the law laid down by this Court in M.R Balaji v. State of Mysore 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439, AIR 1963 SC 649. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court.
2. The State Government in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court justified the enactment of the impugned provisions on the following grounds:
“This amendment was introduced to give representation to the women in the managing committee of the societies. It is submitted that the National Convention on involvement of women in cooperative movement had suggested that 1/3rd of the seats be reserved to the women in the management committee of the societies. Even though there are women members in the societies, they are not coming forward to contest elections to the societies, which invariably involve serious campaigning on the basis of factional and political consideration. In order to encourage women to take active part in the management of the affairs of the society, the Act has been amended to provide for representation of women by nomination in the first instance …. The total number of membership in the society is stated to be 826. Out of these 826 members there are only 29 women members as affirmed by the petitioners. The managing committee of the society consists of 11 members. Barring a few exclusive societies managed by women like the Mahila Cooperative Super Bazars, the participation of women in the affairs of the cooperative societies in Andhra Pradesh has been minimal. There are very few women members who have contested elections at the village level to gain entry into the managing committee of the societies and influence the decision-making process of the committee. Appointment of the women to the managing committee was therefore, considered necessary to give proper representation to women to ensure that the benefits which accrue to the members of the cooperative societies are not cornered by the male members to the exclusion of the women members.”
3. The High Court rejected the main contention of the appellants-petitioners on the reasoning that Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India permits the making of special provisions for women. The High Court went into the scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 in detail and came to the conclusion that impugned provisions were not arbitrary. The High Court further rejected the contention that reservation beyond 50 per cent was not permissible. The High Court rightly held that the ratio in Balaji's case 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439, AIR 1963 SC 649 was only confined to the reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court. We find no infirmity in the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court.
5. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals with no order as to costs.
Alert