Constitution of India
Article 243ZS: Application to Union territories
Part IXB — The Co-operative Societies
Article 243ZS — Main Provision
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. The provisions of Part IXB (Co-operative Societies) shall apply to all Union Territories. 2. In UTs WITHOUT a Legislative Assembly — references to 'Legislature of a State' shall be read as references to the Administrator appointed under Article 239. 3. In UTs WITH a Legislative Assembly — references to 'Legislature of a State' shall be read as references to that Legislative Assembly. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Ensures constitutional provisions on co-operative societies extend uniformly to all UTs. 2. Creates a substitution mechanism — replaces 'State Legislature' with the appropriate UT authority. 3. In UTs like Lakshadweep, the Administrator exercises the co-operative society regulatory powers that a State Legislature would. 4. In UTs like Delhi and Puducherry, their Legislative Assemblies exercise those powers. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Adaptation/Reading Down — constitutional references to State institutions are read as references to their UT equivalents to ensure applicability.
Article 243ZS — Proviso
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. The President may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of Part IXB shall NOT apply to any Union Territory or part thereof. 2. The President specifies the UT or part thereof in the notification. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Grants the President a discretionary exemption power over Part IXB applicability. 2. Allows selective exclusion — can exempt an entire UT or only a part of it. 3. Recognises that some UTs may lack the institutional infrastructure for the co-operative framework. 4. Operates as a safety valve for administrative flexibility. KEY DOCTRINE: Presidential Notification Power — executive discretion to modulate constitutional applicability in Union Territories, similar to provisos in Articles 243M and 243ZC.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) — Rochdale Principles (1844, revised 1995) Original provision: Seven principles including voluntary membership, democratic member control, member economic participation, and autonomy. What India kept: Article 243ZI expressly mandates 'voluntary formation, democratic member-control, member-economic participation and autonomous functioning.' 2. British Cooperative Societies Act, 1904 & 1912 — The first cooperative legislation in India. Original provision: Provided for registration and regulation of cooperative societies under colonial law. What India kept: Continued cooperative societies as a subject in the State List (Entry 32, List II), tracing lineage from Entry 33, Provincial List of the Government of India Act, 1935. 3. Similar provisions for UT application exist in Part IX (Article 243M) for Panchayats and Part IXA (Article 243ZB) for Municipalities — all three follow the same structural template. What India kept: Identical adaptation mechanism — substituting 'State Legislature' with 'Administrator' or 'UT Legislative Assembly.' INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Presidential exemption power via proviso — India added a specific discretionary override for the President to exclude UTs, recognising the diverse governance structures across UTs. 2. Distinction between UTs with and without legislatures — Reflects India's unique UT classification (some with elected legislatures like Delhi/Puducherry, others without). 3. Constitutional status for cooperatives — Unlike most countries where cooperatives are governed solely by statute, India elevated them to constitutional recognition through the 97th Amendment.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: Not applicable — Article 243ZS was NOT part of the original Constitution. INSERTION: Inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. 1. Came into force on 15 February 2012. 2. The Amendment was passed by Parliament in December 2011. 3. Presidential assent received on 12 January 2012. PARLIAMENTARY BACKGROUND: 1. A Conference of Cooperative Ministers (7 December 2004) resolved to amend the Constitution for cooperative reform. 2. The 111th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2009 was first introduced in Lok Sabha. 3. It was referred to a Standing Committee, revised, and reintroduced as the Constitution (111th Amendment) Bill, 2009. 4. Eventually passed as the 97th Amendment Act, 2011. KEY SPEAKERS (Parliamentary Debate): 1. Not a Constituent Assembly matter — hence no Ambedkar speeches on this article. 2. The Statement of Objects and Reasons emphasised democratic functioning, autonomy, and professional management of cooperatives. FINAL OUTCOME: Part IXB (Articles 243ZH to 243ZT) was inserted into the Constitution without obtaining ratification from half the State Legislatures — a procedural lapse later identified by courts. NOTE: The Constituent Assembly debates (CAD Volumes) do not contain any record on this article as it was inserted 62 years after the Constitution came into force.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021) — SC held Part IXB ultra vires for state cooperative societies due to absence of ratification under Article 368(2) proviso; but declared Part IXB operative for multi-State cooperative societies and in Union Territories, applying the doctrine of severability. Article 243ZS remains fully operational for UTs. 2. Rajendra N. Shah v. Union of India (2013, Gujarat HC) — Gujarat HC first struck down Part IXB entirely as unconstitutional for non-compliance with Article 368(2); SC later modified this to preserve Part IXB for multi-State cooperatives and UTs. 3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) — SC Constitution Bench held that Delhi has sui generis status among UTs; clarified how references to State Legislature operate differently in Delhi under Article 239AA — relevant for interpreting 243ZS in Delhi's context. 4. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023) — SC further clarified that legislative and executive power of NCTD is co-extensive, reinforcing the framework under which Article 243ZS adapts Part IXB references for UTs with legislatures. 5. Daman Singh v. State of Punjab (1985) — Constitution Bench upheld validity of compulsory amalgamation of cooperative societies; clarified that cooperative societies are creatures of statute and fall exclusively under State legislative domain (Entry 32, List II). Referenced in the 2021 Rajendra Shah judgment. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice K.M. Joseph in Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021) — Dissented on severability, arguing the ENTIRE Part IXB should be struck down; held the doctrine of severability could not be applied to distinguish multi-State cooperatives from state cooperatives within the same constitutional Part. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Justice R.F. Nariman (majority author, 2021) — Held that cooperative societies belong 'wholly and exclusively' to State legislatures while multi-State cooperatives fall under Parliament's domain (Entry 44, List I), and applied severability to preserve Part IXB for multi-State cooperatives and Union Territories. 2. Granville Austin — Emphasised the value the Constitution places on cooperative governance within the federal structure; his scholarship on federalism was cited in the Delhi governance cases relevant to UT administration.