MPSC 2022 Prelims Paper-I · Question 68 of 100

Correct — option (4), all three statements. Three statements are printed here, (a) to (c), not four, and each of them is accurate. Statement (a) is correct: co-operative societies entered the Constitution through the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. The amendment did three separate things, and they are worth keeping apart because a question can be set on any one of them. It added the words or co-operative societies to Article 19(1)(c), so that forming a co-operative society became a Fundamental Right. It inserted Article 43B into the Directive Principles, directing the State to endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies. And it added an entirely new Part IXB to the Constitution, headed the co-operative societies, laying down rules on incorporation, the number of directors, the five-year term of the board, elections, supersession, audit and the filing of returns. Statement (b) is correct and follows from the first of those three changes: the right to form a co-operative society sits in Article 19(1)(c), which had until then covered only associations and unions. Placing it there rather than creating a fresh clause matters, because the right therefore carries the same permissible restrictions as the freedom of association — restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order or morality. Statement (c) is correct as well, and it takes the story back much further. The first co-operative law in India was the Co-operative Credit Societies Act, 1904, enacted on the recommendation of the Edward Law Committee and modelled in part on the Friendly Societies Act of 1896 in England, its immediate object being to give indebted cultivators a lawful alternative to the village moneylender. Lord Curzon was Viceroy from 1899 to 1905, so the Act falls squarely within his tenure, and the statement is right. One refinement belongs in a candidate's notes even though it does not disturb the answer: on 20 July 2021 the Supreme Court held that Part IXB, in so far as it applies to co-operative societies operating within a single State, was passed without the ratification by the State legislatures that Article 368(2) requires for an amendment affecting the States, and it therefore does not operate on such societies; Part IXB continues to apply to multi-State co-operative societies, and the changes to Article 19(1)(c) and Article 43B were untouched. So statements (a) and (b) remain accurate today in every respect, and the answer is option (4).

• (1)(a) and (c) are correct — This option accepts statements (a) and (c) but rejects statement (b), and statement (b) is correct. The right to form co-operative societies is indeed located in Article 19(1)(c), which before 2011 read as the right to form associations or unions and now reads as the right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies. The placement is deliberate and instructive. Parliament could have created a new clause, but by adding the words to an existing one it made the new right subject to the restrictions already applicable to the freedom of association under Article 19(4) — restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order or morality — rather than devising a fresh set. That is why a question about the permissible restrictions on forming a co-operative society is answered from Article 19(4). Candidates often place the right in Article 43B instead, which is a natural error because that article is also about co-operatives; but Article 43B is a Directive Principle, addressed to the State and not enforceable by a court, while Article 19(1)(c) is a Fundamental Right.
• (2)(b) and (c) are correct — This option accepts statements (b) and (c) but rejects statement (a), and statement (a) is correct. Co-operative societies were written into the Constitution by the Ninety-seventh Amendment Act of 2011, and no earlier amendment did it: before 2011 the Constitution mentioned co-operative societies only in the legislative lists, where co-operative societies appear as an entry in the State List, which is why co-operative law in India had always been State law. The 2011 amendment is what turned a subject of ordinary State legislation into a matter of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as well. Dating the amendment matters for a second reason: the year fixes it firmly after the era of co-operative legislation that candidates otherwise associate with the subject, and separates it clearly from the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Amendments of 1992, which dealt with panchayats and municipalities and are often confused with it because all three inserted a new Part into the Constitution dealing with a form of local or associational self-government.
• (3)(a) and (b) are correct — This option accepts statements (a) and (b) but rejects statement (c), which asserts that the first co-operative law in India was passed in Lord Curzon's tenure. It was. The Co-operative Credit Societies Act came into force in 1904, on the recommendation of the Edward Law Committee and drawing on Frederick Nicholson's report on agricultural credit in the Madras Presidency, and Curzon was Viceroy from 1899 to 1905. The later history is worth adding because it is examined in its own right and because it runs through Maharashtra. The Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 widened the law beyond credit to allow non-credit societies and federal societies. The Government of India Act, 1919 made co-operation a provincial subject, and Bombay was the first province to use that power, passing the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act in 1925 — the first provincial co-operative statute in India, and the one that introduced the principle of one member, one vote. A candidate who rejects statement (c) is usually thinking of one of these later statutes rather than of 1904.

The co-operative movement in India began as an official response to rural indebtedness. The Co-operative Credit Societies Act, 1904, passed during Lord Curzon's viceroyalty on the recommendation of the Edward Law Committee and modelled partly on the English Friendly Societies Act of 1896, allowed cultivators to form credit societies so as to borrow on reasonable terms instead of from the village moneylender. The Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 extended the law beyond credit, permitting non-credit societies and federal organisations. The Government of India Act, 1919 transferred co-operation to the provinces, and Bombay was the first to legislate for itself with the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, which introduced the rule of one member, one vote. From then until 2011 co-operation remained a State subject, with a separate Union statute for societies operating in more than one State, and Maharashtra built on that base the largest co-operative sector in the country, in sugar, in dairying, in urban banking and in credit. The Constitution said nothing about co-operatives beyond the legislative lists until the Ninety-seventh Amendment Act, 2011, which added the words or co-operative societies to Article 19(1)(c), inserted Article 43B among the Directive Principles, and added Part IXB with detailed provisions on boards, elections, audit and supersession. On 20 July 2021 the Supreme Court held that Part IXB could not operate on societies confined to a single State, because the amendment had not been ratified by the State legislatures as Article 368(2) requires for an amendment that touches the distribution of legislative power; Part IXB survives for multi-State societies, and the amendments to Article 19(1)(c) and Article 43B were unaffected. A separate Ministry of Cooperation was created at the Centre in July 2021.

Co-operation is a subject MPSC returns to more often than most commissions, for the plain reason that Maharashtra's economy and its politics have been shaped by co-operative institutions to a degree matched by few States: the co-operative sugar factory, the district central co-operative bank and the co-operative milk union are not academic categories here but the organising units of rural life. The Commission tests the subject in three registers — the constitutional position, the legislative history, and the institutional structure of the sector — and this question sits in the first two. The construction used is one of the least common in the paper: all three statements are true, so the answer is the all of the above option. That is worth noticing as a matter of technique, because candidates are widely and wrongly taught to distrust such options. This paper offers all of the above ten times among its four hundred options and none of the above six times; being offered is simply a fact about the printing and tells a candidate nothing about whether the option is right. The correct treatment is to evaluate each statement on its merits and to accept the comprehensive option if every statement survives. The habit to avoid is the opposite one, of hunting for a flaw in the third statement because two have already been accepted and a clean sweep feels improbable.

• The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 added the words or co-operative societies to Article 19(1)(c), inserted Article 43B into the Directive Principles, and added Part IXB, headed the co-operative societies, to the Constitution.
• The right to form a co-operative society therefore sits in Article 19(1)(c) alongside the right to form associations or unions, and is subject to the same restrictions under Article 19(4) — sovereignty and integrity of India, public order and morality.
• Article 43B directs the State to endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies; being a Directive Principle, it is not enforceable by a court.
• The first co-operative law in India was the Co-operative Credit Societies Act, 1904, enacted on the recommendation of the Edward Law Committee during Lord Curzon's viceroyalty, which ran from 1899 to 1905; the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 extended it beyond credit societies.
• On 20 July 2021 the Supreme Court held that Part IXB does not operate on co-operative societies confined to a single State, for want of ratification by the State legislatures under Article 368(2); it continues to apply to multi-State co-operative societies.

• Placing the right to form co-operative societies in Article 43B; that article is a Directive Principle, while the Fundamental Right sits in Article 19(1)(c)
• Confusing the Ninety-seventh Amendment of 2011 with the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Amendments of 1992, all three of which inserted a new Part dealing with a form of self-government
• Distrusting an all of the above option on principle; this paper offers it ten times, and whether it is right depends entirely on the statements, not on its position
• Forgetting that the Supreme Court in 2021 confined Part IXB to multi-State societies, so a statement about Part IXB applying to societies within a State would now be wrong

Co-operation is asked in MPSC papers more often than the syllabus weighting would suggest, because it is a Maharashtra subject. The recurring shapes are: which amendment brought co-operatives into the Constitution and what it changed; where the right to form a co-operative society is located; which was the first co-operative law and when; and factual questions about the State's own institutions, such as which was the first co-operative sugar factory or which body federates the district central co-operative banks. The constitutional questions are worth preparing as a three-line note — Article 19(1)(c), Article 43B, Part IXB — with the 2021 judgment attached to the third line, because that judgment is recent enough that a question can be built on it and old enough now that candidates are expected to know it. The historical questions are best held as a short chronology from 1904 forward, with the Bombay Act of 1925 marked, since a Maharashtra paper is more likely to ask about the first provincial statute than about the all-India one that preceded it.

No directly related past PYQ was found.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The right to form co-operative societies was made a Fundamental Right by inserting words into which article of the Constitution ?

  • (a)Article 19(1)(a)
  • (b)Article 19(1)(c)
  • (c)Article 43B
  • (d)Article 243ZH

  Answer(b) Article 19(1)(c). The Ninety-seventh Amendment Act, 2011 added the words or co-operative societies to that clause, which had previously covered only the right to form associations or unions, so the right now carries the same permissible restrictions under Article 19(4). Article 43B, inserted by the same amendment, is a Directive Principle directing the State to promote the voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operatives, and Article 243ZH opens Part IXB.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which province was the first in India to enact its own co-operative societies law after co-operation became a provincial subject ?

  • (a)Madras, in 1904
  • (b)Bengal, in 1912
  • (c)Bombay, in 1925
  • (d)Punjab, in 1934

  Answer(c) Bombay, in 1925. The Government of India Act, 1919 transferred co-operation to the provinces, and Bombay was the first to use the power, passing the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, which among other things introduced the principle of one member, one vote. The Co-operative Credit Societies Act of 1904 and the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912 were all-India statutes passed before co-operation became a provincial subject, not provincial legislation.