The Supreme Court pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for continuing the colonial-era system of appointing bureaucrats’ spouses as ex-officio office-bearers in cooperative bodies. The court directed the state to amend laws and shift towards democratic, elected governance structures.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for continuing what it described as a “colonial-era mindset” in running cooperative societies and similar public bodies.
The court expressed serious concern over the practice where the wives of senior bureaucrats such as District Magistrates and Chief Secretaries are automatically made ex-officio office-bearers in these societies.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi instructed the state government to make necessary changes in the law and amend the relevant provisions within the next two months.
The court observed that the existing system reflects outdated thinking and goes against modern democratic governance.
The Bench pointed out that several byelaws of societies in Uttar Pradesh still give important posts, including that of president, to the wives of top officials without any election or transparent process. The court said such arrangements were “wholly inconsistent with democratic principles”.
The matter was heard in a petition filed by CM Zila Mahila Samiti, Bulandshahr, which challenged the practice after the District Magistrate’s wife was made the ex-officio president of the samiti.
The organisation, which works for welfare of poor and destitute women, argued that the functioning of the samiti had become arbitrary and lacked accountability.
According to the petitioners, the administrative setup was opaque and not in line with the true purpose of empowering women.
During the hearing, the Bench raised serious questions on the logic behind this system and firmly stated,
“Why should the wife of a DM be the ex-officio president of such a society without any democratic process,” adding that such arrangements had “no justification in modern governance”.
The judges further remarked that the structure of the samiti showed a mindset that was “dusted in the hands of the wife of the collector” and stressed that public welfare bodies must be controlled and led by members who are elected through a proper democratic process.
The Uttar Pradesh government informed the court that a new bill was already being prepared to replace the old 1860 registration law and requested time until the end of January to finalise it.
Taking note of this assurance, the Supreme Court directed that once the bill is passed by the state assembly, it must be approved and notified without unnecessary delay.
The court also ordered that the amended law must ensure the creation of standard model byelaws for all state-funded societies, trusts and legal entities. It warned that any society refusing to follow these model rules could lose its legal recognition or government financial support.
Emphasising democratic functioning, the court stated that governance systems
“must lean towards democratic values where most members are duly elected.”
Regarding the Bulandshahr Samiti, whose elections and byelaws had earlier been set aside, the court clarified that it would not be derecognised.
Instead, an interim body would continue managing statutory duties under applicable laws until a properly elected body takes charge after the new legal framework is implemented.
The Bench also officially recorded the state’s assurance that old colonial provisions allowing spouses of bureaucrats to hold such positions would be removed.
It further noted that the new legislation would be presented before the state assembly “as early as possible” and would be notified promptly.
This ruling marks a strong judicial push towards transparency, democratic participation and accountability in the functioning of cooperative societies and welfare bodies, reinforcing the principle that public institutions must not operate under feudal or colonial patterns in a modern constitutional democracy.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Maharashtra Local Body
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
