The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal challenging the invalidation of certain election-related bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers’ Co-operative Unions in Rajasthan.
The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan has observed that Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 provides a comprehensive dispute resolution framework, including remedies before the Registrar for election-related disputes. The availability of such alternative remedies, coupled with the absence of a public law element, rendered the invocation of writ jurisdiction inappropriate in the present case.
The issue raised was in respect of maintainability of writ petitions, the autonomy of co-operative societies, and the distinction between eligibility criteria and statutory disqualifications.
The dispute arose from a batch of writ petitions filed before the Rajasthan High Court, wherein certain bye-laws governing eligibility for contesting elections to the Board of Directors of District Milk Unions were challenged. These bye-laws imposed conditions such as minimum milk supply, audit classification, and operational continuity of member societies. The High Court had struck down these provisions as ultra vires the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, holding them inconsistent with the statutory framework.
However, the Supreme Court found serious legal infirmities in the High Court’s approach. It noted that the writ petitions themselves were not maintainable, as they pertained to internal management and electoral processes of co-operative societies—areas that generally do not attract judicial review under Article 226 unless a clear public law element or statutory violation is established.
A central aspect of the ruling is the Court’s reaffirmation that co-operative societies are not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution merely due to statutory regulation. The Court emphasized that regulatory supervision by the government does not convert such bodies into public authorities amenable to writ jurisdiction. It relied on established precedents to underline that disputes concerning internal governance, including election eligibility, must ordinarily be resolved through statutory mechanisms rather than constitutional remedies.
Importantly, the judgment draws a clear distinction between “eligibility conditions” and “disqualifications.” While statutory disqualifications are governed by specific provisions of the Act, the Court held that co-operative societies are empowered to prescribe additional eligibility criteria through their bye-laws. The impugned provisions, which aimed to ensure that only active and contributing member societies participate in governance, were found to be consistent with the objectives of efficiency, accountability, and sustained production within the co-operative framework.
The Supreme Court observed that several affected co-operative unions, including the appellants, were not made parties to the original writ proceedings. Despite this, the High Court’s ruling had wide-ranging consequences, effectively operating in rem. The Court held that such an approach, without affording an opportunity of hearing to affected stakeholders, was legally unsustainable.
By setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court has reinforced the autonomy of co-operative societies in regulating their internal affairs, while simultaneously delineating the boundaries of judicial intervention under Article 226. The ruling is expected to have broader implications for co-operative governance across India, particularly in sectors where operational performance and member participation are critical to institutional functioning.
Case Details
Case Title: Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors Versus Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited And Others
Citation: JURISHOUR-715-SC-2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4352 Of 2026
Date: 10/04/2026
Read More: IBC | Existence Of Pre-Existing Dispute Bars Initiation Of CIRP: Supreme Court
