Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from an order of the Bombay High Court dated November 8, 1993 in Appeal No. 790/93. The dispute concerned membership enrolment in a cooperative society formed for the welfare of Dalits, to which the Government of India had allotted prime land in Bombay for construction of housing. The society, Navyuvak Harijan Utthapan Multi Unit Industrial Coop. Society Ltd., was formed on June 7, 1979 and registered under the Cooperative Societies Act for industrial purposes. The Government allotted two acres of land at Bhandup (East), Survey No.246 (pt.) of Kanjur village, by order dated January 18, 1995, for construction of a housing colony for members at concessional rates keeping in view the welfare of the Harijan community. The original membership consisted of 28 members belonging to Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and 5 OBC members. The bye-laws prescribed that membership should consist of 80% Dalits and 20% others, and originally the membership was intended to be 112, i.e., 90 Dalits and 22 non-Dalits. The society did not have the required 90 Dalit members. When the then President, Bal Krishna, invited applications, 78 persons applied. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies directed the society to enrol all of them as members. A member objected, but the objection was overruled and the High Court directed that all 78 persons be enrolled. Hence the appeal. The core question was whether the Registrar and High Court could direct enrolment of non-Dalit members beyond the 20% quota prescribed by the bye-laws, when the land was allotted specifically for housing for Dalits under constitutional mandates. Counsel for the 78 persons and the builder contended that no corresponding amendment to the bye-laws had been made specifying 90 Dalits and 22 others, and therefore the High Court was right in directing enrolment of non-Dalit members. The appellant member contended that the enrolment defeated the very purpose of the land allotment meant for economic empowerment and housing of Dalits. The Supreme Court observed that the object of providing two acres of prime government land was to ameliorate the economic conditions of Dalits by providing right of residence, a fundamental and human right under Article 19(1)(e) read with Article 21 of the Constitution. The court referred to Articles 46, 39 and 38 and to international instruments like Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, which recognize right to housing. The court relied on precedents including M/s. Shantistar Builders, Olga Tellis, P.C. Gupta, Chameli Singh, and Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar to affirm that right to shelter is an inseparable component of the right to life and that the State is obligated to distribute material resources to subserve common good. The court held that the benefit of economic empowerment given to the Dalit members could not be diluted by the President or builder by inducting members beyond the prescribed percentage. Any action opposed to constitutional animation and public policy was void. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Registrar as unconstitutional, and directed the Registrar to conduct an enquiry to identify Dalits among the 78 applicants and enrol them. Only 22 non-Dalits (including the initial 5 OBC members and 17 from the rest) could be enrolled. The society was directed to invite applications from Dalits to make up the shortfall of 90 Dalit members. Contributions made by non-members were to be refunded with interest. Non-Dalits were to be accommodated within the 20% quota by a method like draw of lots, seniority, or promptness of payment, as devised by the Registrar. The Registrar was to decide after notice and hearing within three months and submit a report to the Court Registry. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Shelter - Fundamental and Human Right - Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(e), 21 - The court held that right to residence and settlement is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) and part of right to life under Article 21, reinforced by international human rights instruments; the Government's allotment of two acres of prime land for construction of housing for Dalits was to enable them to live with dignity and secure meaningful right to life - Held that the object of providing land was to ameliorate economic conditions of Dalits and could not be defeated by enrolling non-Dalit members beyond bye-law quota (Paras 1-4). B) Cooperative Societies - Membership Enrolment - Bye-law Quota Compliance - Cooperative Societies Act and Bye-laws - The society's bye-laws required 80% Dalit and 20% others among its members; the court found that the society did not have 90 Dalit members and the President's invitation and Registrar's direction to enrol all 78 applicants including non-Dalits violated the bye-laws and public policy - Held that the directions of the High Court and Registrar were unconstitutional and set aside; Registrar directed to identify Dalits among the 78 and enrol only eligible Dalits, limit non-Dalits to 22 quota (Paras 1-4). C) Constitutional Law - Directive Principles - Economic Empowerment and Distribution of Resources - Constitution of India, Articles 38, 39(b), 46 - The court relied on Directive Principles to hold that the State is obligated to distribute material resources to subserve common good and promote social and economic interests of Dalits, Tribes, backward classes and poor; the allotment of land was in implementation of these principles - Held that any contract or action opposed to constitutional animation and public policy is void; enrolment of non-Dalits defeated the purpose behind the allotment (Paras 1-4). D) Contract and Public Policy - Void Actions - Enrolment Beyond Quota - General Principles - The court declared that any action or contract opposed to constitutional animation and public policy is void; directions for refund of contributions to non-members with interest and for inviting Dalit applications to fill shortfall were issued - Held that the management must place material before Registrar and Registrar decide within three months (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the High Court could direct enrolment of all 78 applicants as members of a cooperative housing society constituted for Dalits, despite bye-laws requiring 80% Dalit membership, and whether such enrolment beyond the prescribed quota was constitutionally valid.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; orders of the High Court and Registrar set aside; Registrar directed to enquire and identify Dalits among the 78 applicants, enrol eligible Dalits, limit non-Dalits to 22 (including initial 5 OBCs and 17 others), invite Dalit applications to fill shortfall, refund contributions of non-members with interest, decide within three months and submit report to Court Registry; no costs.
Law Points
- Right to shelter is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution
- State allotment of land for Dalit housing must conform to bye-law membership quota
- actions opposed to constitutional policy are void
- Directive Principles under Articles 38
- 39(b) and 46 mandate economic empowerment of Dalits
- enrolment beyond 20% non-Dalit quota defeats purpose and is void
