Article 243ZT

Article 243ZT of the Indian Constitution provides for the continuance of existing laws relating to co-operative societies following the commencement of the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011, which introduced Part IXB into the Constitution. This provision ensures a smooth and orderly transition from the earlier state-specific legal framework for co-operative societies to the new constitutionally recognised system of governance based on democratic and transparent principles.

Constitutional Context and Background

Before the 97th Amendment, co-operative societies were primarily governed by state laws under Entry 32 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. However, inconsistencies in governance, lack of accountability, and excessive state interference weakened the co-operative movement across India.
To revitalise and constitutionally protect co-operatives, Part IXB (Articles 243ZH to 243ZT) was added, setting out uniform principles for their incorporation, management, and regulation. As co-operative societies were already operating under pre-existing state laws, Article 243ZT was included to ensure continuity of these laws until they were appropriately amended or repealed to align with the new constitutional framework.
This provision serves a transitional purpose similar to Article 243N (which deals with the Panchayati Raj system) and Article 243ZF (which relates to Municipalities).

Key Provisions of Article 243ZT

1. Continuance of Existing Laws

• Article 243ZT provides that all laws relating to co-operative societies that were in force immediately before the commencement of the 97th Constitutional Amendment shall continue to operate even after the new provisions come into effect.
• However, this continuance is temporary and subject to two conditions:
  1. The existing laws will remain in force only until they are amended or repealed by a competent legislature or authority.
  2. If no such amendment or repeal occurs, the laws will automatically cease to operate after one year from the commencement of the 97th Amendment Act (i.e., from February 15, 2012, when the amendment came into force).

This ensures that there is no legal vacuum in the governance of co-operative societies during the transition to the new constitutional regime.
2. Competent Authority for Amendment or Repeal

• The competent authority to amend or repeal pre-existing co-operative laws depends on the jurisdiction:
  • For state co-operative societies, it is the State Legislature.
  • For multi-state co-operative societies, it is the Parliament under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.
• These authorities are responsible for modifying their respective laws to ensure conformity with the constitutional requirements set out in Part IXB.

3. Legal Continuity and Stability

• The transitional arrangement under Article 243ZT ensures that ongoing activities, contracts, or proceedings of existing co-operative societies are not disrupted.
• All pre-existing co-operative societies continue to function under the same legal provisions until new laws or amendments are enacted.

Objectives of Article 243ZT

The inclusion of Article 243ZT serves several important constitutional and administrative objectives:

• Ensuring continuity in governance: Prevents disruption in the functioning of co-operative societies during the transition to the constitutional framework.
• Avoiding legal uncertainty: Maintains the validity of pre-existing laws and actions until replaced or modified.
• Providing time for legislative adaptation: Gives states and Parliament adequate time to review, amend, or harmonise their existing co-operative laws.
• Facilitating a smooth transition: Ensures that democratic and transparent principles introduced under Part IXB are implemented in a phased and orderly manner.

Significance of the Provision

Article 243ZT plays a pivotal role in the implementation of the 97th Amendment by:

• Maintaining stability: It ensures uninterrupted governance of co-operatives during legislative adjustments.
• Preventing administrative confusion: Provides clarity to authorities, members, and regulators about the legal status of existing co-operative laws.
• Enabling uniform reforms: Helps align diverse state laws with the constitutional framework, promoting national consistency in co-operative governance.
• Protecting members’ interests: Ensures that members’ rights, liabilities, and benefits remain safeguarded during the transition period.

Judicial Interpretation and Related Case Law

While Article 243ZT itself has not been the subject of direct judicial interpretation, related judgments have clarified the broader constitutional implications of the 97th Amendment and its application to co-operative societies:

• Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021) – The Supreme Court held that the 97th Amendment is valid only concerning multi-state co-operative societies, as it was not ratified by half the states as required for state subjects under Article 368(2). However, the Court reaffirmed that the amendment and its provisions (including Article 243ZT) remain operative for multi-state co-operatives, ensuring constitutional continuity.
• State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) – Emphasised the importance of ensuring that statutory provisions are harmonised with constitutional mandates to maintain institutional stability during transitions.
• Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) – Reinforced the principle that legislative continuity and constitutional compliance are vital to maintaining the rule of law during transitions in governance frameworks.

These judgments collectively highlight that Article 243ZT safeguards legal stability and constitutional consistency in the functioning of co-operatives across India.

Comparative Perspective

Article 243ZT bears similarity to other transitional provisions found in Parts IX and IXA of the Constitution:

• Article 243N (Panchayats) – Ensures the continuity of existing laws and Panchayats for one year after the 73rd Amendment.
• Article 243ZF (Municipalities) – Provides for the continuance of municipal laws and bodies during the transition following the 74th Amendment.

Like these articles, 243ZT prevents abrupt legal changes by providing a one-year grace period for legislative adjustments.

Implementation Challenges

Despite its transitional intent, several challenges have been encountered in implementing Article 243ZT effectively:

• Delay in state-level amendments: Many states were slow to align their co-operative laws with the constitutional framework, leading to inconsistencies.
• Jurisdictional confusion: Post the Rajendra N. Shah judgment, questions remain about the constitutional validity of certain state laws vis-à-vis multi-state co-operatives.
• Administrative inertia: Lack of coordination between central and state authorities has sometimes delayed the harmonisation process.
• Awareness gaps: Many co-operative societies and their members were unaware of the constitutional changes and their implications.

Impact and Continuing Relevance

Even though Article 243ZT was a transitional provision, its role remains important in understanding how constitutional reforms are implemented pragmatically within India’s federal framework. It set a model for:

• Phased adoption of reforms without disrupting existing institutions;
• Legal continuity in periods of constitutional change; and
• Co-operative federalism, balancing state autonomy with national objectives.

The experience of implementing Article 243ZT has also informed discussions on future constitutional amendments involving decentralisation and institutional restructuring.