VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY versus GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING  FEDERATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 997, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 997 
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY 
v. 
GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING 
FEDERATION LIMITED AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 2015 etc.) 
MARCH 19, 2015 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Cooperative Society: 
Removal of Chairperson/elected office bearer by a 
motion of no-confidence in the absence of a specific 
provision on removal by no confidence in the Act, Rules 
A 
B 
c 
or even Bye-laws of a Co-operative Society - Held: Office D 
bearer is liable to be removed in the event of Joss of 
confidence by following the same procedure by which he 
was elected to office - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 
1961 - s. 73, proviso -
Constitution of India, 1950 -
Arts.243ZT, 243ZH(b). 
E 
No confidence motion - Held: There is no uniformity 
with regard to the procedure and process regarding motion 
of no confidence in local self governments - Having regard 
to the set up in local self-governments preva1Jing in many F 
of the States as such, in the case of cooperative societies 
registered under any Central or State law, a motion of no 
confidence against an office bearer should be moved only 
after two.years of his assumption of office -
Jn case the 
motion of no confidence is once defeated, a fresh motion G 
shall not be introduced within another one year. 
Laws relating to Cooperative Societies - Historical 
background and the legislation - Discussed. 
997 
H
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
· A 
Interpretation of statutes: Held: If the statute is silent 
or imprecise on the requirements under the Constitution, 
it is for the court to read the constitutional mandate into 
the provisions concerned and declare it accordingly 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. If a person has been selected to an 
office through democratic process, and when that 
person looses the confidence of the representatives 
c who selected him, those representatives should 
necessarily have a democratic right to remove such an 
office bearer in whom they do not have confidence, in 
case those institutions are viewed under the 
Constitution/statues as democratic institutions. Once 
o the cooperative society is conferred a constitutional 
status, it should rise to the constitutional aspirations 
as a democratic institution. So, it is for the respective 
legislative bodies to ensure that there is democratic 
functioning. When the Constitution is eloquent, the 
E laws made thereunder cannot be silent. If the statute 
· is silent or imprecise on the requirements under the 
Constitution, it is for the court to read the 
constitutional mandate into the provisions concerned 
and declare it accordingly. Article 243ZT has given a 
F period of one year to frame/reframe the statutes in 
consonance with Part IXB and thereafter, i.e., with 
effect from 12.01.2013, those provisions which are 
inconsistent with Part IXB, cease to operate. [Paras 21,
G 25) [1017-C-D; 1019-C-E] 
H 
Bhanumati and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh through 
its Principal Secretary and Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 1: 2010 
(11) SCR240; Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council 
of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 573: 2011 (11)
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. 
999 
MILK MARKETING FED. LTD. 
SCR965; Usha Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. A 
(2014) 7 SCC 663: 2014 (4) SCR1076 - distinguished. 
Thompson (Pauper) v. Gold and Co. [1910) A.C. 409 
- referred to. 
2. The entire administration, management and B 
control of the respondent-Federation are vested in the 
Board of Directors as per the Bye-law in terms of 
proviso to Section 73 of the Gujarat Cooperative 
Societies Act, 1961. The Chairperson of the first c 
respondent is elected by the Board for a term of three 
years and after the 97th Amendment to the Constitution, 
the term is five years. When the post of Chairperson 
falls vacant, the Board is bound to elect a new 
Chairperson for the remaining term. The post of o 
Chairperson may fall vacant on account of variety of 
reasons like resignation, death or cessation of 
membership in the Board, operation of Section 76B of 
the Act, i.e., removal by the Registrar on account of 
persistent default or misconduct. The removal by no E 
confidence is not expressly provided in the Bye-laws. 
Neither is there any such provision in the Act or Rules. 
The only enabling provision is Bye-law 18.2 which 
mandates that in case the office of the Chairperson of 
the Federation falls vacant before the expiry of his F 
term for any reason, the Board has to elect a new 
Chairperson for the remaining term. [Paras 32, 38, 39) 
[1023-G; 1026-F-H; 1027-A-B) 
Lakshmanan, President, Thiruvi/wamal Weavers
Co-
G 
operative Society v. II. Vel/iankeri, Member of Board of 
Directors, Thiruvilwamala Weavers Co-operative Society 
Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2002 Kerala 325; Veeramachaneni 
Venkata Narayana v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative 
societies, Eluru, West Godavari District and Ors. I.LR. H
1000 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A [1975) A.P. 242; Hindurao Ba/want Patil and Anr. v. 
B 
Krishnaro Pashuram Patil and Ors. AIR 1982 Bombay 
216; Jagdev Singh v. The Registrar, Co-operative 
Societies, Haryana and Ors. AIR 1991 P & H 149 -
referred to. 
3. Section 26B simply deals with removal for 
misconduct or persistent default/non-performance. A 
person with good conduct may still not earn the 
confidence of the people who selected him to the 
c office. The very concept of cooperation is to work 
jointly towards the same end. Unless there is 
cooperativeness among the elected cooperators who 
constitute the Governing Body for achieving the object 
for which ttie society is constituted and for which 
o those representatives are elected by the members 
entrusting them with the management of affairs of the 
society, there will be total chaos. Cooperation among 
the cooperators is the essence of democratic 
functioning of a cooperative society. If there is no 
E de!llocracy in a cooperative society, it ceases to be a 
cooperative society as conceived by the Constitution 
of India under the 971h Amendment. A right to elect is 
not a fundamental right nor a common law right; it is 
a statutory right, and any question relating to election 
F has to be resorted within the four corners of the Act. 
[Paras 46, 47) [1030-F-H; 1031-A-C] 
Jyoti Basu and Ors. v. Debi Ghosa/ and Ors. (1982) 
1 SCC 691: 1982 (3) SCR 318 - relied on. 
G 
Seaford Court Estates v. Asher
(1949) 2 All ER 155 
- referred to. 
4. The cooperative registered under the Central or 
the State Act is bound to function as a democratic 
institution and conduct its affairs based on democratic 
H
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1001 
MARKETING FED. LTD. 
principles. Democratic functioning on democratic A 
principles is to be reflected in the respective Acts or 
Rules or Bye-laws both on the principle and procedure. 
If not, it is for the court to read the democratic 
principles into the Act or Rules or Bye-laws. If a 
procedure is prescribed in any Act or Rule or By.e-law B 
regarding election of an office bearer by the Board, as 
defined under Article 243ZH(b) of the Constitution of 
India, and for removal thereof, by way of a motion of 
no confidence, the same procedure has to be followed. 
In case there is no express provision under the Act. or C 
Rules or Bye-laws for removal of an office bearer, such 
office bearer is liable to be removed in the event of loss 
of confidence by following the same procedure by 
which he was elected to office. [Para 53] [1034-H, 1035-
D 
A-D] [1035-F-H; 1036-A-C] 
Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung (Dead) 
by Lrs. and Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 67: 1991 (1) SCR 327 -
relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2010 (11) SCR 240 
Distinguished 
. Para 18 
2011· (11) SCR 965 
Distinguished 
Para 19 
2014 (4) SCR 1076 
Distinguished 
Para 19· 
(1910) A.C. 409 
referred to 
Para 28 
AIR 2002 Kerala 325 
referred to 
Para 40 
I.LR. (1975) A.P. 242 
referred to 
Para 41 
AIR 1982 Bombay 216 
referred to 
Para 42 
AIR 1991 P & H 149 
referred to 
Para 43 
1982 (3) SCR 318 
relied on 
Para 47 
E 
F 
G 
H
1002 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
1991 (1) SCR 327 
relied on 
Para 52 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
3047 of 2015 etc. 
8 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2014 of 
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 6 of 
2014 in Civil Application No. 13220 of 2013 in Special 
Application No. 16515 of 2013. 
WITH 
c 
C. A. Nos. 3048 and 3049 of 2015 
Kapil Sibal, H. Ahmedi, Harin P Raval, Mihir Thakar, 
B. B. Naik, Anip Sachthey, Saakaar Sardana, Rohan 
D Sharma for the Appellant. 
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Ashok Desai, 
Jesal Wahi, Puja Singh, Giss Antony (for Hemantika Wahi), 
Abhijeet Sinha, Dilip Singh Parmar, Bharat S. Patel, Sanjay 
E R. Hegde, Amit M. Panchal, S. Nithin (for Anil Kumar 
Mishra-I), Shamik Sanjanwala, Nandish Chudgar, Kailash 
Pandey, Ranjeet Singh (for K. V. Sreekumar), Purvish 
Jitendra Malkan, B. S. Patel, Pradhuman Gohil., Vikash 
Singh, Taruna Singh Gohil, Jaikriti Singh Jadeja, 
F Prabuddha Sharma, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
2. Whether in the absence of a specific provision on 
H 
removal by no confidence in the Act, Rules or even Bye-
laws of a Cooperative Society, the Chairperson/elected 
office bearer can be removed by a motion of no 
confidence, is the short but complex question.
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1003 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
3. Appellant was removed from the office of the A 
Chairperson of the first respondent-cooperative society 
through a no confidence motion. Aggrieved, appellant filed 
a writ petition which was dismissed as per the impugned 
judgment and thus the appeal. 
4. Shri Kapil Sibal, Shri H. Ahmedi and Shri Harin P. 
B 
Raval, learned Senior Counsel led the arguments on 
behalf of the appellant. Shri Tushar Mehta, Additional 
Solicitor General, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Shri Ashok Desai 
and Shri V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Sanjay R. c 
Hegde and Shri B. S. Patel, learned Counsel, led the 
arguments on behalf of the respondents. 
5. International Cooperative Alliance Statement on the 
Cooperative Identity was adopted in Manchester, United 
Kingdom on 23.09.1995. The 'cooperative' is defined as: 
D 
"A co-operative i.s an autonomous association of 
persons united voluntarily to meet their common 
economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations 
through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled 
E 
enterprise." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
6. The Statement also provides for 'values' on which 
cooperatives should model themselves, which reads as F 
follows: 
"Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, 
self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and 
solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, G 
co-operative members believe in the ethical values of 
honesty, openness, social
responsibility and caring for 
others." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
H
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
7. The Statement further provides for 'seven 
cooperative principles' as guidelines by which the 
cooperatives put their values into practice. Following are 
the principles: 
B 
"1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership 
Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all 
persons able to use their services and willing to accept 
the responsibilities of membership, without gender, 
c 
social, racial, political or religious discrimination. 
D 
E 
2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control 
Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled 
by their members. who actively participate in setting 
their policies and making decisions. Men and women 
serving as elected representatives are accountable to 
the membership. In primary co-operatives members 
have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and 
co-operatives at other levels are also organized in a 
democratic manner. 
3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation 
Members contribute equitably to, and demoqratically 
F 
control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part 
of that capital is usually the common property of the 
co-operative. Members usually receive limited 
compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a 
condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses 
G 
for any or all of the following purposes: developing 
their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part 
of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting 
members in proportion
to their transactions with the 
co-operative; and supporting other activities approved 
H

VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1005 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
by the membership. 
A 
4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence 
Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organizations 
controlled by their members. If they enter to 8 
agreements with other organizations, including · 
governments, or raise capital from external sources, 
they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by 
their members and maintain their co-operative 
autonomy. 
c 
5th Principle: Education, Training and Information 
Co-operatives provide education and training for their 
members, elected representatives, managers, and 
employees so they can contribute effectively to the D 
development of their co-operatives. They inform the 
general public - particularly young people and opinion 
leaders -
about the nature and benefits of co-
operation. 
E 
6th Principle: Co-operation among Co-operatives 
Co-operatives serve their members most effectively 
and strengthen the co-operative movement by working 
together through local, national, regional and F 
international structures. 
7th Principle: Concern for Community 
Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of 
their communities through policies approved by their G 
members." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
8. The cooperative movement in India started at the H
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A beginning of the 20'h century. Though the movements were 
also based on some of the values and principles stated 
above, it appears that the cooperatives in India did not 
have effective autonomy, democratic functioning and 
professional management. The National Policy on 
B Cooperatives announced by the Department of Agriculture 
and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of 
India adopted in March, 2002, is wholly based on the 
definition, values and principles stated above. 
97'h 
Amendment to the Constitution of India, in fact, gave a 
C constitutional frame to this policy. 
9. Apart from providing for the right to form 
cooperative societies to be a fundamental right under 
Article 19 of the Constitution of India and insertion of 
D Article 438 under the Directive Principles of State Policy 
on promotion of cooperative societies, the amendment also 
introduced a new Part IXB on Cooperative Societies. 
Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 
amendment would give a clear picture as to the need to 
E strengthen the democratic basis and provide for a 
constitutional status to the cooperative societies. Thus, one 
has to see the constitutional aspirations on the concept of 
cooperative societies after the 97'h Amendment in the 
F Constitution of India which came into effect on 12.01.2012. 
"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS 
The co-operative sector, over the years, has made 
significant contribution
to various sectors of national 
G 
economy and has achieved voluminous growth. 
However, it has shown weaknesses in safeguarding 
the interests of ihe members and fulfilment of objects 
for which these institutions were organised. There 
have been instances where elections have been 
H 
postponed indefinitely and nominated office bearers or
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1007 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
administrators remaining in-charge of these institutions A 
for a long time. This reduces the accountability of the 
management of co-operative societies to their 
members. Inadequate professionalism in management 
in many of the co-operative institutions has led to poor 
services and low productivity. Co-operatives need to 
B 
run on well established democratic principles and 
elections held on time and in a free and fair manner. 
Therefore, there is a need to initiate fundamental 
reforms to revitalize these institutions in order to 
ensure their contribution in the economic development C 
of the country and to serve the interests of members 
and public at large and also to ensure their autonomy, 
democratic functioning and professional management. 
2. The "co-operative societies" is a subject enumerated D 
in Entry 32 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule 
of the Constitution and the State Legislatures have 
accordingly enacted legislations on co-operative 
societies. Within the framework of State Acts, growth 
of co-operatives on large scale was envisaged as part E 
of the efforts for securing social and economic justice 
and equitable distribution of the fruits of development. 
It has, however, been experienced that in spite of 
considerable expansion of co-operatives, their F 
performance in qualitative terms has not been up to 
the desired level. Considering the need for reforms
in 
the Co-operative Societies Acts of the States, 
consultations with the State Governments have been 
held at several occasions and in the conferences of G 
State Co-operative Ministers. A strong need has been 
felt for amending the Constitution so as to keep the 
co-operatives free from unnecessary outside 
interferences and also to ensure their autonomous 
organisational set up and their democratic functioning. 
H
1008 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 
3. The Central Government is committed to ensure 
that the co-operative societies in the countrv function 
in a democratic, professional, autonomous and 
economically sound manner. With a view to bring the 
necessary reforms, it is proposed to incorporate a new 
Part in the Constitution so as to provide for certain 
provisions covering the vital aspects of working of co-
operative societies like democratic, autonomous and 
professional functioning. A new article is also proposed 
to be inserted in Part IV of the Constitution (Directive 
Principles of State Policy) for the States to endeavour 
to promote voluntary formation, autonomous 
functioning, democratic control and professional 
management of cooperative societies. The proposed 
new Part in the Constitution, inter alia, seeks to 
empower the Parliament in respect of multi-State co-
operative societies and the State Legislatures in case 
of other co-operative societies to make appropriate 
law, laying down the following matters, namely:-
( a) provisions for incorporation, regulation and 
winding up of co-operative societies based on the 
· principles of 
democratic member-control, 
member-economic participation and autonomous 
functioning; 
(b) specifying the maximum number of directors of 
a co-operative society to be not exceeding twenty-
one members; 
G 
(c) providing for a fixed term of five years from the 
date of election in respect of the elected
members 
of the board and its office bearers; 
(cf) providing for a maximum time limit of six months 
H 
during which a board of directors of co-operative
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1009 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
society could be kept under supersession or A 
suspension; 
(e) providing for independent professional audit; 
(f) providing for right of information to the members 8 
of the co-operative societies; 
(g) empowering the State Governments to obtain 
periodic reports of activities and accounts of co-
operative societies; 
(h) providing for the reservation of one seat for the 
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and two 
seats for women on the board of every co-operative 
society, which have individuals as members from 
c 
• 
such categories; 
D 
(t) providing for offences relating to co-operative 
societies and penalties in respect of such offences. 
4. It is expected that these provisions will not only E 
ensure the autonomous and democratic functioning 
of co-operatives. but also ensure the accountability 
of management to the members and other 
stakeholders and shall provide for deterrence for 
violation of the provisions of the law. 
5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
F 
10. Article 438 of the Constitution of India provides for G 
promotion of cooperative societies: 
"438. The State shall endeavour to promote voluntarv 
formation. autonomous functioning, democratic control 
and professional management of co-operative H
1010 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
societies." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
11. Part IXB of the Constitution of India is titled as 
B ''The Cooperative Societies". A few provisions would be 
relevant for our consideration. 
Article 243ZH(b) defines "board": 
"243ZH(b) "board" means the board of 
C 
directors or the governing body of a co-operative 
society, by whatever name called, to which the 
direction and control of the management of the 
affairs of a society is entrusted to;" 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(Emphasis supplied) 
Article 243ZH(c) defines "cooperative society": 
"243ZH(c) "co-operative society" means a 
society registered or deemed to be registered under 
any law relating to co-operative societies for the time 
being in force in any State;" 
"Office bearer" is under Article 243ZH(e): 
"243ZH(e) "office bearer" means a President, 
Vice-President, Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, 
Secretary or Treasurer of a co-operative society and 
includes any other person to be elected by the 
board of any co-operative society;" 
Article 243ZJ provides for the number and term of 
members of the board and its office bearers: 
"243ZJ. (1) The board shall consist of such 
number of directors as may be provided by the
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1011 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
Legislature of a State, by law: 
Provided that the maximum number of 
directors of a co-operative society shall not exceed 
twenty-one: 
Provided further that the Legislature of a 
A 
B 
State shall, by law, provide for the reservation of one 
seat for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled· 
Tribes and two seats for women on board of every 
co-operative society consisting of individuals as C 
members and having members from such class or 
category of persons. 
(2) The term of office of elected members of 
the board and its office bearers shall be five years 0 
from the date of election and the term of office 
bearers shall be coterminous with the term of the 
board: 
Provided that the board may fil~ a casual 
vacancy on the board by nomination out of the E 
same class of members in respect of which the 
casual vacancy has arisen, if the term of office of 
the board is less than half of its original term. 
(3) The Legislature of a State shall, by law, 
F 
make provisions for co-option of persons to be 
members of the board having experience in the field 
of banking, management, finance or specialization in 
any other field relating to the objects and activities 
undertaken by the co-operative society as members G 
of the board of such society: 
Provided that the number of such co-opted 
members shall not exceed two in addition to twenty-
one directors specified in the proviso to clause (1 ):

H
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Provided further that such co-opted members 
B 
shall not have the right to vote in any election of the 
co-operative society in their capacity as such 
member or to be eligible to be elected as office 
bearers of the board: 
Provided also that the functional directors of 
a co-operative society shall also be the members of 
the board and such members shall be excluded for 
the purpose of counting the total number of directors 
C 
specified in first proviso of clause (1 )." 
D 
E 
F 
(Emphasis supplied) 
Article 243ZT provides for continuance of the 
existing laws: 
"243ZT. Notwithstanding anything in this Part, 
any provision of any law relating to co-operative 
societies in force in a State immediately before the 
commencement of the Constitution (Ninety Seventh 
Amendment) Act, 2011, which is inconsistent with 
the provisions of this Part. shall.continue to be in 
force until amended or repealed by a competent 
Legislature or other competent authority or until the 
expiration of one year from such commencement. 
whichever is less.'." 
(Emphasis supplied) · 
12. Thus, by 12.01.2013, all laws on cooperative 
G societies were bound to be restructured in consonance 
with the Ninety Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of 
India and, in any case, any provision in the Act or Rules 
or Bye-laws otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution will 
be inoperative thereafter. Articles 438 and 243ZT are 
H mandates to all the States
and the competent authorities .
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1013 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.) 
to structure cooperative societies as conceived in the A 
Constitution of India, if not already there. Therefore, we 
have to see whether the Act, Rules or Bye-laws contain 
any provision for democratic functioning. 
13. The first legislation on cooperative movement in B 
India was the Cooperative Credit Societies Act, 1904 and, 
thereafter, the cooperative societies emerged in India as 
State sponsored/promoted institutions. The main objective 
was only credit intended to relieve the poor agriculturists 
from the clutches of moneylenders. The first urban. C 
cooperative credit society under the Act of :1904 was 
registered in Kanjivaram in erstwhile Madras province1• The 
traits of democracy were present in the very first legislation 
through the principle "one man, one vote". Since the first 
legislation was limited to the credit societies, a new D 
legislation was introduced 8 years later as "Cooperative 
Societies Act, 1912". The restriction regarding registration 
limited to credit societies was taken away and any society 
established with the object of promoting the economic 
interests of its members i.n accordance with the E 
cooperative principles, or a society established with the 
object of facilitating the operations of such a society, could 
be registered2• 
14. Under the Government of India Act of 1919 F 
(Montague Chelmsford Reforms), cooperation became a 
provincial subject
which gave a further impetus to the 
movement. This gave birth to several cooperative land 
1 "Brief History of Urban Cooperatives" adapted from a paper by O.P. G 
Sharma published on Reserve Bank of India website 
- www.rbi.org.in/scripts/briefhistory.aspx. 
2 The Co-operative Movement in India by Eleanor M. Hough, Fourth Edition, 
1959 
H
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
. A mortgage banks. The first of its kind was registered in 
Punjab. Close to independence and thereafter, we see a 
radical change and increased growth in the cooperative 
movement. Activities were spread to all spheres of human 
endeavour, and thus in 2002, National Policy on 
B Cooperatives was announced. 
15. The cooperative societies having been conferred 
a constitutional status by the Ninety Seventh Amendment, 
the whole concept of cooperatives has undergone a major 
C change.· In 1993, the local self.governments, viz., 
panchayats and municipalities were also given 
constitutional status under Parts IX and IXA of the 
Constitution of India by the 73'd and 74'" Amendments. The 
Statement of Objects and Reasons would show that the 
D Constitution wanted the local bodies to function as vibrant 
democratic units of self-government. After two decades, 
cooperative societies were given the constitutional status 
by including them under Part IXB. The main object for the 
said amendment was also to ensure "their autonomy, 
E democratic functioning and professional management". 
16. The National Policy on Cooperatives announced 
in March 2002 has recognized democracy, equality, equity 
and solidarity as values of cooperatives. Cooperative 
F society has been declared as a democratic institution. 
Democratic principles have all through been recognized as 
one of the cooperative principles though the constitutional 
affirmation of
those principles came only in 2012. 
G 
17. The principle of representative democracy is the 
election of representatives by the people otherwise eligible 
to caste their vote and the people thus elected, constituting 
the body for the management of an institution. Thus, in the 
case of cooperative societies, after the amendment in the 
H Constitution, there has to be a Board of elected
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1015 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.) 
representatives, which may be called Board of Directors or A 
Governing Body or a Managing Committee, etc., to which 
the members entrust the direction and control of the 
management of the affairs of the society. That 
representative body selects one among the elected 
representatives as its Chairman or any other office bearer, 
B 
as the case may be. Selection is the act of carefully 
choosing someone as the most suitable to be the leader 
or office bearer. Thus, there is a mt of difference between 
election of delegates/representatives to constitute a body 
and selection of a person by the body from amongst the C 
elected members to be the leader. It is to be borne in mind 
that the management and control of the society is 
entrusted to the representative body, viz., the Board of 
Directors and that the Chairperson elected by the Board D 
of Directors is the Chairperson of the society and not of 
the Board of directors. 
18. In Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar 
Pradesh through its Principal Secretary and others3 , 
the cooperative principles governing democratic institutions E 
have been discussed in detail; no doubt while dealing with 
the Panchayati Raj institutions. 
However, the basic 
democratic principles governing .both the institutions, 
enjoying the constitutional status, are the same and, 
F 
therefore, it would be profitable to refer to the discussion 
on the principles.
To quote: 
"58. These institutions must run on democratic 
principles. In democracy all persons heading public 
bodies can continue provided they enjoy the G 
confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. 
This is the essence of democratic republicanism. This 
3 (2010) 12 sec 1 
H
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
explains why this provision of no-confidence motion 
was there in the Act of 1961 even prior to the Seventy-
third Constitution Amendment and has been continued 
even thereafter. Similar provisions are there in different 
B 
States in India. 
66. Democracy demands accountability and 
transparency in the activities of the Chairperson 
especially in view of the important functions entrusted 
with the Chairperson in the running of Panchayati Raj 
c 
institutions. Such duties can be discharged by the 
Chairperson only if he/she enjoys the continuous 
confidence of the majority members in the panchayat. 
So any statutory provision to demonstrate that the 
Chairperson has lost the confidence of the majority is 
D 
conducive to public interest and adds strength to .such 
bodies of self-governance. Such a statutory provision 
cannot be called either unreasonable or ultra vires Part 
IX of the Constitution." 
E 
19. In Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council 
of Madhya Pradesh and others4 and in Usha Bharti v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh and others~. the concept of 
democratic principles governing the democratic institutions 
have been discussed. In a democratic institution, 
F confidence is the foundation on which the superstructure 
of democracy is built. The bedrock of democratic 
accountability rests on the confidence of the electorate. If 
the representative body does not have confidence in the 
office bearer whom they selected,
democracy demands 
G such officer to be removed in a democratic manner. 
20. A cooperative society is registered on cooperative 
4 c2011i 9 sec 573 
H s c2014) 1 sec es3
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1017 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.) 
principles of democracy, equity, equality and solidarity. A 
Democratic accountability, mutual trust, fairness, 
impartiality, unity or agreement of feeling among the 
delegates, cooperativeness, etc., are some of the cardinal 
dimensions of the cooperative principles. A body built on 
such principles cannot be led by a captain in whom the co-
B 
-;ailors have no confidence. 
21. If a person has been selected to an office through 
democratic process, and when that person looses the 
confidence of the representatives who selected him, those C 
representatives should necessarily have a democratic right 
to remove such an office bearer in whom they do not have 
confidence, in case those institutions are viewed under the 
Constitution/statues as democratic institutions. 
22. In Bhanumati case (supra), at pwagraph-67, this 
Court elaborated on this principle: 
D 
"67. Any head of a democratic institution must be 
prepared to face the test of confidence. Neither the E 
democratically elected Prime Minister of the country 
nor the Chief Minister of a State is immune from such 
a test of confidence under the Rules of Procedure 
framed under Articles 118 and 208 of the Constitution. 
Both the Prime Minister of India and Chief Ministers F 
of s~~eral States heading the Council of Ministers at 
the Centre and in several States respectively have to 
adhere to the principles of collective
responsibilities to 
their respective houses in accordance with Articles 
75(3) and 164(2) of the Constitution." 
G 
23. In Pratap Chandra Mehta case (supra), at 
paragraph-45, the principle has been discussed as follows: 
"45. In the instant case, the election process as H
1018 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
contemplated under the relevant laws is that the 
members of a State Bar Council are elected by the 
electorate of advocates on the rolls of the State Bar 
Council from amongst the electorate itself. The elected 
members then elect a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and 
the Treasurer of the State Bar Council as well as 
constitute various committees for carrying out different 
purposes under the provisions of the Advocates Act. 
In other words, the body which elects the Chairman or 
Vice-Chairman of a State Bar Council always consists 
of members elected to that Council. The democratic 
principles would require that a person who attains the 
position of a Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case 
may be, could be removed by the same electorate or 
smaller body which elected them to that position by 
taking recourse to a "no-confidence motion" and in 
accordance with the Rules. The body that elects a 
person to such a position would and ought to have the 
right to oust him/her from that post, in the event the 
majority members of the body do not support the said 
person at that time. Even if, for the sake of argument, 
it is taken that this may not be generally true, '.:the 
provisions of Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules make it 
clear, beyond doubt, that a "no-confidence motion" can 
be brought against the elected Chairman provided the 
conditions stated in the said Rules are satisfied." 
24. In Usha Bharti case
(supra) also, this Court 
eloquently held at paragraph-53 as follows: 
"53. In our opinion, the provision for removing an 
elected representative such as Panchayat Adhyaksha 
is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic 
functioning of the Institution as well as to ensure the 
transparency and accountability in the functions
\ 
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1019 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
performed by the elected representatives." 
A 
25. No doubt, in the cases referred to above, the 
respective Acts contained a provision regarding no 
confidence. What about a situation where there is no 
express provision regarding no confidence? Once the B 
cooperative society is conferred a constitutional status, it 
should rise to the constitutional aspirations as a democratic 
institution. So, it is for the respective legislative bodies to 
ensure that there is democratic functioning. When the 
Constitution is eloquent, the laws made thereunder cannot C 
be silent. If the statute is silent or imprecise on the 
requirements under the Constitution, it is for the court to 
read the constitutional mandate into the provisions 
concerned and declare it accordingly. Article 243ZT has 
given a period of one year to frame/reframe the statues in D 
consonance with Part IXB and thereafter, i.e., with effect 
from 12.01.2013, those provisions which are inconsisterit 
with Part IXB, cease to operate. 
-
26. Silence in Constitution and abeyance as well has E 
been dealt extensively GY Michael Foley in his celebrated 
work "The Silence of ·constitutions". To quote from the 
Preface: 
"Abeyances refer to those constitutional gaps which 
F 
remain vacuous for positive and constructive 
purposes. They are not, in any sense, truces between 
two or more defined positions, but rather a set of 
implicit
agreements to collude in keeping fundamental 
questions of political authority in a state of irresolution. G 
Abeyances are, in effect, compulsive hedges against 
the possibility of that which is unresolved being 
exploited and given meanings almost guaranteed to 
generate profound division and disillusionment. 
Abeyances are important, therefore, because of their H 
•
• 
1020 
A 
B 
I 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
capacity to deter the formation of conflicting positions 
in just those areas where the potential for conflict is 
most acute. So central are these abeyances, together 
with the social temperament required to sustain them, 
that when they become the subject of heightened 
interest and subsequent conflict, they are not merely 
accompanied by an intense constitutional crisis, they 
are themselves the essence of that crisis." 
27. In Part II, Chapter Four, the author has also dealt 
C with the constitutional gaps and the arts of prerogative. To 
the extent relevant, it reads as follows (Page-82): 
D 
E 
F 
"Gaps in a constitution should not be seen as simply 
~ 
empty space. They amount to a substantial plenum of 
strategic content and meaning vital to the preservation 
of a constitution. Such interstices accommodate the 
abeyances within which the sleeping giants of 
potentially acute political conflict are communally 
maintained in slumber. Despite the absence of any 
documentary or material form, these abeyances are 
real, and are an integral part of any co.nstitution. What 
remains unwritten and indeterminate can be just as 
much responsible for the operational character and 
restraining quality of a constitution as its more tangible 
and codified components. .. . " 
28. Where the Constitution has conceived a particular 
structure on certain institutions, the legislative bodies are 
bound to mould the statutes
accordingly. Despite the 
G constitutional mandate, if the legislative body concerned 
does not carry out the required structural changes in the 
statutes, then, it is the duty of the court to provide the 
statute with the meaning as per the Constitution. . . . "The 
job of the Supreme Court is not to expound the meaning 
H
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1021 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
of the constitution but to provide it with meaning"6• The A 
reference obviously is to United States Supreme Court. As 
a general rule of interpretation, no doubt, nothing is to be 
added to or taken from a statute. However, when there are 
adequate grounds to justify an inference, it is the bounden 
duty of the court to do so. 
. .. "It is a corollary to the B 
general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be 
added to or taken from a statue unless there are adequate 
grounds to justify the inference that the legislature intended 
something which it omitted to express"7• According to Lord 
Mersey in Thompson (Pauper) v. Goold and Co.8 ... "It is C 
a strong thing to read into an Act or Parliament words, 
which are not there, and in the absence of clear necessity, 
it is wrong to do". In the case of cooperative societies, after 
the Ninety Seventh Amendment, it has become a clear or D 
strong necessity to do the strong thing of reading into the 
legislation, the constitutional mandate of the cooperative 
societies to be governed as democratic institutions. . .. 
"The constitutional provisions have to be construed broadly 
and liberally having regard to the changed circumstances E 
and the needs of time and polity"9• 
29. Article 243ZT of the Constitution requires the laws 
relating to cooperative societies in force in States prior to 
the commencement of the Amendment Act to be in
tune F 
with and in terms of the constitutional concept and set up 
6 Walter Berns, 'Government by lawyers and judges',Commen!aty, June, 
1987 at p.18. 
7 Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statues, Twelfth Edition, page-33. 
G 
[1910] A.C. 409. 
8 Constitutional Bench decision in State of West Bengal and others v. 
9 Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights. West Bengal and others 
reported in [(2010) 3 SCC 571, Paragraph-45. 
H
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A of cooperative societies. In fact, a period of one year has 
been provided in the Constitution from the commencement 
of the amendment for the required amendment or repeal. 
by the competent legislature or by the competent authority, 
of laws which are incomristent with Part IXB. As a corollary, 
B the Constitution enables the competent legislature or 
authority to suitably amend the existing provisions in their 
laws in tune with the constitutional mandate. Thereafter, in 
case there continues to be silence in the Act or Bye-laws, 
the court will have to read the constitutional requirements 
C into the existing provisions. It is essentially a process of 
purposive construction of the available provisions as held 
by 
this 
Court 
in 
Pratap 
Chandra 
Mehta 
case (supra). 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
30. Bye-law 18.2 of the first respondent, pertaining to 
the office of the Chairperson of the Federation falling 
vacant before the expiry of his elected term, will have to 
be analysed in the light of the above principle. The 
provision reads as follows: 
"18.2. 
The Chairperson of the Federation will be 
elected by the Board for the Term of three years and 
he I she shall continue to hold his I her office till the 
new Chairperson is elected and takes over. He I she· 
shall be honorary Chairperson. In case the elected 
Chairperson vacates his I her office before expirv of 
his I her term or due to any other reason the post of 
Chairman falls
vacant. the Board shall elect the new 
Chairperson for the remaining term. 
The election of the Chairperson will take place in· the 
first Board meeting of the Federation after the expirv 
of the term of the elected Chairperson or when the 
· Chairperson's post falls vacant. In his I her absence, 
the meeting shall elect its own Chairperson for that
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1023 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
meeting from amongst the eligible members present. A 
The Chairperson in such event shall exercise such 
power as may be delegated to him by the Board of 
Directors. The Managing Director of the Federation 
shall not be entitled to vote and contest the election 
for the post of Chairperson." 
B 
(Emphasis supplied) 
31. Bye-law 23 deals with the powers of the Board of 
Directors: 
c 
"23. Powers and Functions of the Board 
The entire administration, management and control of 
the Federation shall be vested in the Board of 
Directors. The Board of Directors shall have and 
D 
exercise all such powers and enter into all such 
agreements made, all such arrangements, take all 
such proceeding and do all such acts and things as 
may be necessary or proper for the due management 
of the Federation and for carrying out objects for which E 
the Federation is established and for securing and 
furthering its interest subject to the provisions of the 
Act or such act as shall hereafter take its place and 
to any rules which may be passed by the State 
Government in pursuance of the said Act and subject F 
also to these Bye-Laws and I or any Bye-law which 
may be duly made by the Federation." 
32. Thus, the entire administration, management and 
control of the Federation are vested in the Board of 
Directors as per the Bye-law. This is in terms of proviso G 
to Section 73 of the Gujarat Cooperative
Societies Act, 
1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Section 
reads as follows: 
"Section 73 :- Final authority of society - Subject H

1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
to the provisions in this Act and the rules, the final 
authority of every society shall vest in the general 
body of the members in general meeting, summoned 
in such a manner as may be specified in the bye-laws: 
B 
Provided that, where the bye-laws of a society 
c 
D 
E 
provide for the election of delegates of such members, 
the final authority may vest in the delegates of such 
members elected in the prescribed manner, and 
assembled in general meeting." 
33. The General Body of the first respondent-
Federation, in terms of Bye-law 13.1 comprises of the 
following: 
"13.1 The General Meeting shall consist of the following:-
(1) The Chairman of each of the affiliated Milk Unions 
enrolled as Ordinary Members; 
(2) The Registrar; 
(3) The Dairy Management Expert co-opted by the 
Board; 
(4) Managing Director of the Federation; 
F 
(5) A nominee of the National Dairy Development 
Board as long as the loan I interest of the National 
Dairy Development Board have not been fully repaid 
by the Federation. 
G 
The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall preside 
over the General Meeting. In case of his absence, 
the meeting shall elect a Chairman from among the 
members present." 
H 
34. The composition of the Board of Directors of the
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1025 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
first respondent-Federation is provided under Bye-law 18.1: A 
"18.1 The Board will consist of the following: 
(i) 
Chairman of the affiliated milk unions enrolled as 
ordinary members; 
B 
(ii) Registrar or his representative not below the rank 
of Joint Registrar [C.S.]; 
(iii) One Dairy Management Expert to be co-opted by 
~B~; 
C 
(iv) Managing Director of the Federation [ex-officio]; 
(v) A nominee of the National Dairy Development 
Board as long as the loan I interest of the National D 
Dairy Development Board have not been fully repaid 
Act: 
by the Federation." 
35. "Committee" is defined under Section 2(5) of the 
"Section 2(5) "committee" means the Managing 
Committee or other governing body of a society to 
E 
· which the direction and control of the management of 
the affairs of a society is entrusted to." 
F 
36. "Officer" is defined under Section 2(14) of the Act: 
"Section 2(14) "officer" means a person elected or 
appointed by a society to any office of such society 
according to its bye-laws; and includes a chairman, G 
vice-chairman, president, vice-president, managing 
director, manager, secretary, treasurer, member pf the 
committee, and any other person elected or appointed 
under this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, to give 
directions in regard to the business of such society." 
H
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
37. Section 4 of the Act provides for the registration 
of societies: 
"Section 4- Societies which may be registered - A 
society, which has as its object the promotion of the 
B 
economic interests or general welfare of its members 
or of the public, in accordance with co-operative 
principles, or as society established with the object of 
facilitating the operations of any such society, may be 
c 
registered under this Act: 
Provided that it shall not be registered if, in the opinion 
of the Registrar, it is economically unsound, or its 
registration may have an adverse effect upon any 
other society, or it is opposed to, or, its working is likely 
D 
to be in contravention of public policy." 
38. A conjoint reading of all the provisions under the 
Act and the Bye-laws of the Society would clearly show 
that the functional authority of the first respondent-
, ' 
E Federation vests in the Board of Directors. The entire 
administration, management and control of the Federation 
is with the Board. Thus, the Board of Directors is bound 
to do all such acts and things as may be necessary for the 
proper management of the Federation. The Chairperson of 
F the first respondent is elected by the Board for a term of 
three years and after the 97'h Amendment to the 
Constitution, the term is five years. When the post of 
Chairperso" falls vacant, the Board is bound to elect a 
new Chairperson for the remaining term. The post of 
G
Chairperson may fall vacant on account of variety of 
reasons like resignation, death or cessation of membership 
in the Board, operation of Section 76B of the Act, i.e., 
removal by the Registrar on account of persistent default 
or niisconduct. 
H
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1027 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
39. The removal by no confidence is not expressly A 
provided in the Bye-laws. Neither is there any such 
provision in the Act or Rules. The only enabling provision 
is Bye-law 18.2 which mandates that in case the office of 
the Chairperson of the Federation falls vacant before the 
expiry of his term for any reason, the Board has to elect B 
a new Chairperson for the remaining term. 
40. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Counsel appearing for the 
appellant, inviting reference to the doctrine of casus 
omissus and placing reliance on the Full-Bench decision C 
of the High Court of Kerala in S. Lakshmanan, President. 
Thiruvilwamal Weavers Co-operative Society v. 
V.Velliankeri, Member of Board of Directors. 
Thiruvilwamala Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. and 
others 10 and the decisions of. the other High Courts D 
submits that no such power of removal of the Chairperson 
by no confidence can be read into the provisions of the 
Act, · Rules 
or 
Bye-laws. 
To 
quote 
from 
S. Lakshmanan case (supra) : 
"16. The Committee is elected by following the 
procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules and 
is guaranteed a tenure as prescribed in the Bye-laws, 
E 
by virtue of Rule 39(1). It can only be removed by the 
procedure prescribed in the Act or the Rules or the F 
Bye-laws. The only contingency under which the 
Committee may be removed before the end of its 
tenure is indicated in Section
33(1) of the Act. Section 
~ 
of the Act envisages the passing of a no-
confidence motion by the General Body which results G 
in wholesale removal of the Committee. Barring this 
provision, there is no other provision by which an 
elected individual member of the Committee. can be 
10 AIR 2002 Kerala 325 
H
1028 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
removed. We are, therefore, unable to accept the 
contention of the appellants that such a drastic power 
can be read into the Act, even where there are no 
provisions .... " 
B 
41. In Veeramachaneni Venkata Narayana v. The 
c 
D 
,Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies. Eluru, West 
Godavari District and others11 , at paragraphc10, the view 
taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is as under: 
"10. ... As sufficient safeguards are provided in the 
event of an office-bearer of the committee not 
conducting himself properly or not discharging his 
duties as required of him under the provisions of the 
Act, the Rules and the bye-laws, the Legislature 
obviously did not intend to provide for the removal of 
an office-bearer of a committee by way of passing of 
'no-confidence' motion against him." 
42. In Hindurao Balwant Patil and another 
v. Krishnaro Pashuram Patil and others12, the High 
E Co1,.1rt of Bombay took the view that: 
F 
"10 .... The Act, Rules and the bye-laws do no confer 
any right upon the members of the Board of Directors 
to remove the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman by 
passing a mere vote of no confidence. Therefore it will 
not be proper to confer such a wider power upon.the 
board of directors by taking recourse to the doctrine 
of implied or inherent power." 
43. In Jagdev Singh v. The Registrar, Co-operative 
G Societies. Haryana and others13, the Full-Bench of High 
11 l:L.R. [1975] A.P. 242 
12
AIR 1982 Bombay 216 
H 13 AIR 1991 p & H 149
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1029 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
Court of Punjab and Haryana held as follows: 
A 
"22 ..... the answer to the question posed in the 
beginning of the judgment, is that in absence of any 
provision in the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 
1961, Rules and the Bye-laws made thereunder (as B 
also in the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, 
Rules and the Bye-laws made thereunder) for moving 
a no-confidence in the President of a Managing 
Committee/ Chairman of a Board of Directors of a Co-
operative Bank, it is not permissible to move such a C 
motion, inasmuch as such a power cannot be inferred 
nor such a power is inherent in the members of the 
Managing Committee/Director of the Bank. The Office 
bearers can only be removed in accordance with 
Section 27 of the Act read with Rules 25 and 26 of D 
the Rules. With respect we are unable to agree with 
the law laid down by the Division Bench in Haji Anwar 
Khan's case (AIR 1980 Punjab & Haryana 306) 
(supra) (which was a case under the Wakf Act), to our 
mind, does not lay down correct law." 
E 
44. It rnay be seen that all these decisions dealt with 
the pre-Ninety Seventh Amendment status of the 
cooperative societies. The amendment providing 
. constitutional status to the societies· has brought out radical F 
changes in the concept of cooperative societies. 
Democratic functioning and autonomy have now become 
the core constitutional values of a cooperative society.
Such societies are to be registered only if they are founded 
on cooperative principles of democracy, equality, equity G 
and solidarity. 
45. We may also refer to another argument by Shri 
Sibal. That once the Act provides for a fixed term, the only 
mode of unsettling the term is as provided under the Act. H
1030 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A In the instant case, it is Section 768 of the Act, which 
reads as follows: 
"76B. Removal of officer. - (1) If, in the opinion of the 
Registrar, any officer makes persistent default or is 
B 
negligent in performance of the duties imposed on him 
by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws or does 
anything which is prejudicial to the interests of the 
Society or where he stands disqualified by or under 
this Act, the Registrar may, after giving the officer an 
C 
opportunity of being heard, by order remove such 
officer and direct the Society to elect or appoint a 
person or a qualified member in the vacancy caused 
by such removal and the officer so elected or 
appointed shall hold office so long only as the officer 
D 
in whose place he is elected or appointed would have 
held if the vacancy had not occurred.· 
(2) The Registrar may, by order, direct that the officer 
so removed shall be disqualified to hold or to contest 
E 
election for any office in the society from which he is 
removed and in any other society for a period not 
exceeding four years from the date of the order and 
such officer may stand disqualified accordingly." 
• 
F 
46. The provision simply deals with removal for 
misconduct or persistent default/non-performance. A 
person with good conduct may still not earn the confidence 
of the people who selected him to the office. The very 
concept of cooperation is to work jointly towards the same 
G end. Unless
there is cooperativeness among the elected 
cooperators who constitute the Governing Body for 
achieving the object for which the society is constituted 
and for which those representatives are elected by the 
members entrusting them with the management of affairs 
H of the society, there will be total chaos. Cooperation among
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1031 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
the cooperators is the essence of democratic functioning A 
of a cooperative society. If there is no democracy in a 
cooperative society, it ceases to be a cooperative society 
as conceived by the Constitution of India under the Ninety 
Seventh Amendment. 
B 
47. There is no quarrel with the wellcsettled proposition 
that a right to elect is not a fundamental right nor a 
common law right; it is a statutory right, and any question 
relating to election has to be resorted within the four 
corners of the Act as held by this Court in Jyoti Basu and c 
others v. Debi Ghosal and others14. To quote paragraph-
8: 
"8. A right to elect, fundamental though it" is to 
democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a 0 
fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure 
and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be 
elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside 
of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be 
el_ected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory E 
creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory 
limitation. An election petition is not an action at 
common law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding 
to which neither the common law nor the principles of 
equity apply but only those rules which the statute F 
makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a 
special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in 
accordance with the statute
creating it. Concepts 
familiar to common lawand equity must remain 
strangers to election law unless statutorily embodied. G 
A court has no right to resort to them on 
considerations of alleged policy because policy in such 
matters as those, relating to the trial of election 
14 (1982) 1 sec e91 
H
1032 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of 
election disputes, court is put in a strait-jacket. Thus 
the entire election process commencing from the 
issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency 
to elect a member or members right up to the final 
resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the 
election is regulated by the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951, different stages of the process being 
dealt with by different provisions of the Act. There can 
be no election to Parliament or the State Legislature 
except as provided· by the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 and again, no such election may be 
questioned except in the manner provided by the 
Representation of the People Act. So the 
Representation of the People Act has been held to be 
a complete and self-contained code within which must 
be found any rights claimed in relation to an election 
or an election dispute. We are concerned with an 
election dispute. The question is who are parties to an 
election dispute and who may be impleaded as parties 
to an election petition. We have already referred to the 
scheme of the Act. We have noticed the necessity to 
rid ourselves of notions based on common law or 
equity. We see that we must seek an answer to the 
question within the four corners of the statute. What 
does the Act say?" 
48. In the background of the constitutional mandate, 
the question is not what the
statute does say but what the 
G statute must say. If the Act or the Rules or the Bye-laws 
do not say what they should say in terms of the 
Constitution, it is the duty of the court to read the 
constitutional spirit and concept into the Acts. : .. "In so far 
as in its Act Parliament does not convey its intention 
H clearly, expressly and completely, it is taken to require the
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1033 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
enforcement agencies who are charged with the duty of A 
applying legislation to spell out the detail of its legal 
meaning. This may be done either- (a) by finding and 
declaring implications in the words used by the legislator, 
or (b) by regarding the breadth or other obscurity of the 
express language as conferring a delegated legislative B 
power to elaborate its meaning in accordance with public 
policy (including legal policy) and the purpose of the 
legislation"15. 
49. The conventional view is that the legislature alone C 
makes the law. But as Bennion puts it: 
"The truth is that courts are inescapably possessed of 
some degree of legislative power. Enacted legislation 
lays down rules in advance. The commands of o 
Parliament are deliberate prospective commands. The 
very concept of enacted legislation postulates an 
authoritative interpreter who operates ex post facto. No 
such interpreter can avoid legislating in the course of 
exercising that function. It can be done by regarding E 
the breadth or other obscurity of the express language 
as conferring a delegated legislative power to 
elaborate its meaning in accordance with public policy 
(including legal policy)"16. 
50. According to Donaldson J.: 
''The duty of the courts is to ascertain and give effect 
F 
to the will of Parliament as expressed in its 
enactments. In the performance of this duty the judges G 
15 Bennion on
Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion, 6'h 
Edition, p.136. 
16 Bennion on Statutory tnterpretation by Francis Bennion, 6th Edition, p.137. H
1034 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
do not act as computers into which are fed the statues 
and the rules for the construction of statues and from 
whom issue forth the mathematically correct answer. 
The interpretation of statutes is a craft as much as a 
science and the judges, as craftsmen, select and 
apply to the appropriate rules as the tools of their 
trade. They are not legislators, but finishers, refiners 
and polishers of legislation which comes to them in a 
state requiring varying degrees of further processing."17 
51. In the celebrated case of Seaford Court Estates 
v. Asher18 , Lord Denning has succinctly summarized the 
principle on the role of the court. To quote: 
"Whenever a statute comes up for consideration it 
must be remembered that it is not within human 
powers to foresee the manifold sets of facts which 
may arise, and, ev~n if it were, it is not possible to 
provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity ... A 
judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the 
draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive 
task of finding the intention of the Parliament, and he 
must do this not only from the language of the statue, 
but also from a consideration of the social conditions 
which gave rise to it arid of the mischief which it was 
passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the 
written word so as to give "force and life" to the 
intention of the legislature .... Put into homely 
metaphor it is this: A judge
should ask himself the 
question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves 
come across this ruck in. the texture of it, they would 
have straightened it out? He must then do as they 
17 Corocraft Ltd v Pan American Airways Inc. [1968] 3 WLR 714 at 732. 
H 
18 [1949] 2 All ER 155
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1035 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.] 
would have done. A judge must not alter the material A 
of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron 
out the creases." 
52. In Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz 
Jung (Dead) by Lrs. and others 19 , this Court, at B 
paragraph-17 of the judgment, has also dealt with the 
principles in following words: 
"17 . ... The legislature often fails to keep pace with 
the changing needs and values nor is it realistic to c 
expect that it will have provided for au contingencies 
and eventualities. It is, therefore, not only necessary 
but obligatory on the courts to step in to fill the lacuna. 
When courts perform this function undoubtedly they 
legislate judicially. But that is a kind of legislation which o 
stands implicitly delegated to them to further the object 
of the legislation. and to promote the goals of the· 
society. Or to put it negatively, to prevent the 
frustration of the legislation or perversion of the goals 
and values of the society. So long as the courts keep E 
themselves tethered to the ethos of the society and do 
not travel off its course, so long as they attempt to 
furnish the felt necessities of the time and do not 
refurbish them, their role in this respect has to be 
welcomed." 
F 
53. The cooperative society registered under the 
Central or the State Act is bound to function as a 
democratic institution and conduct its affairs based on 
democratic
principles. Democratic functioning on G 
democratic principles is to be reflected in the respective 
Acts or Rules or Bye-laws both on the principle and 
procedure. If not, it is for the court to read the democratic 
19 (1991) 3 sec 67 
H
1036 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A principles into the Act or Rules or Bye-laws. If a procedure 
is prescribed in any Act or Rule or Bye-law regarding 
election of an office bearer by the Board, as defined under 
Article 243ZH(b) of the Constitution of India, and for 
removal thereof, by way of a motion of no confidence, the 
B same procedure has to be followed. In case there is no 
express provision un,:ler the Act or Rules or Bye-laws for 
removal of an office bearer, such office bearer is liable to 
be removed in the event of loss of confidence by following 
the same procedure by which he was elected to office. 
c 
54. Now that this Court has declared the law regarding 
the democratic set up of a cooperative society and that it 
is permissible to remove an elected office bearer through 
motion ,of no confidence, and since in many States, the 
D relevant statutes have not carried out the required statutory 
changes in terms of the constitutional mandate, we feel it 
just and necessary to lay down certain guidelines. 
However, we make it clear that these guidelines are open 
to be appropriately modified and given statutory shape by 
E the competent legislature/authority. Having gone through 
the provisions regarding motion of no confidence in local 
self-governments, we find that there is no uniformity with 
regard to the procedure and process regarding motion of 
F no confidence. Some States provide for a protection of two 
years, some for one year and a few
for six months, to the 
office bearers in office before moving a motion of no 
confidence. However, majority of the States provide for two 
years and a gap of another one year in case one motion 
G of no confidence is defeated. Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 
2006 provides for a protection of two years and one year, 
Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 provides for a protection of two 
years and one year, Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 
1994 provides for a protection of two years and two years, 
H Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY v. GUJARAT COOP. MILK 1037 
MARKETING FED. LTD. [KURIAN, J.) 
Adhiniyam, 1993 provides for a protection of two and a A 
half years, Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 
provides for a protection of two years and one year, 
Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 provides for a protection 
of two years and one year, Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 
1959 provides for a protection of two years, Orissa Grama B 
' 
Panchayats Act, 1964 provides for a protection of two 
years, Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 provides for a 
protection of two years, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 
1994 provides for a protection of two years and one year, 
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 provides for a protection C 
of two years and Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1947, 
as followed by Uttarakhand, provides for a protection of 
two years and one year. Having regard to the set up in 
local self-governments prevailing in many of the States as 0 
above, we direct that in the case of cooperative societies 
registered under any Central or State law, a motion of no 
confidence against an office bearer shall be moved only 
after two years of his assumption of office. In case the 
motion of no confidence is once defeated, a fresh motion E 
shall not be introduced within another one year. A motion 
of no confidence shall be moved only in case there is a 
request from one-third of the elected members of the 
Board of Governors/Managing Committee of the 
cooperative society concerned. The
motion of no F 
confidence shall be carried in case the motion is supported 
by more than fifty per cent of the elected members present 
in the meeting. 
55. Though for different reasons, we agree with the view G 
taken by the· High Court of Gujarat. The contra views 
expressed by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, 
Kerala and Punjab and Haryana are no more good law in 
view of the Ninety Seventh Amendment to the Constitution 
H

1038 
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A of India. 
56. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There 
shall be no order as to costs. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals dismissed.