“Compliance Must Be Verifiable, Not Merely Asserted”: Karnataka High Court Quashes Voter Ineligibility for Breach of Rule 13D, Directs Creation of Digital Portal Under Co-operative Societies
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru allowed a writ petition challenging the exclusion of several members from participating in elections of a co-operative society. The Court held that the petitioners had been declared ineligible to vote without compliance with the statutory requirement under Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 2A of Rule 13D of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. The Court observed that “declaration and/or holding the petitioners as ineligible is not sustainable in view of the contravention of Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 2A of Rule 13D of the Rules.”
Justice Suraj Govindaraj heard matter and issued a certiorari quashing the impugned notices. The Court further ordered the respondents to count the votes cast by the petitioners and declare the election results within seven days, unless restricted by other legal proceedings. It also issued broader directions to institutional stakeholders to initiate technological reforms, noting that “compliance must be verifiable, not merely asserted.”
The petitioners, numbering thirteen, approached the Court seeking to set aside the voters' list dated 21 January 2025, to include their names in the electoral roll, and to permit them to vote and contest elections of Viswaprajna Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. for the 2025–2030 term. The petitioners contended that they were declared ineligible without receiving prior notice in compliance with Rule 13D(2A)(ii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960.
According to the petitioners, the relevant rule mandates that members deemed ineligible must be served with notice at least six months prior to the election date, through registered post. The petitioners alleged that no such notice was served upon them and no opportunity was granted to submit objections within the stipulated fifteen-day period. The exclusion, they argued, was in direct contravention of the statutory requirement.
The writ petitioners cited that an earlier order dated 28 January 2025 had permitted them to cast their votes, pending final adjudication. Following this, they voted in the election held on 9 February 2025.
The respondents filed a Statement of Objections, wherein it was claimed that notice had been issued on 23 January 2025. However, the Court recorded that “even if the notice were to be issued on 23.1.2025... the same would not qualify the requirement of Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 2A of Rule 13D of the Rules.” The prescribed notice period of six months had therefore not been observed.
The Court also noted the broader systemic issue of repeated non-compliance by co-operative societies with Rule 13D in other matters, which had resulted in multiple litigations involving ineligible voter declarations.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj examined the legal requirements under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. The Court observed that “the grievance of the petitioners was that they were declared ineligible without following the requirements of Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 2A of Rule 13D of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960... no notice six months prior to the date of election has been served on the petitioners by registered post and no opportunity having been given to them to file their objections.”
The Court noted that “this Court vide its order dated 28-01-2025 has permitted the petitioners to cast their vote... the petitioners have cast their vote in the election held on 9-2-2025.” It held that the subsequent declaration of ineligibility violated mandatory procedural safeguards and could not be upheld in law.
Referring to broader implications, the Court stated: “There are several matters which are coming up before this Court alleging that a member of the Co-operative Society has been declared ineligible to vote... the requirements of Rule 13D of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 have not been followed.”
It further recorded that “there is no particular system in place to verify whether these compliance have been made... most of the times notice issued to the Society though served on the Chief Executive, the Society remains unrepresented, there being no Standing Counsel who can be served.”
On the issue of systemic reform, the Court observed: “The Act having been come into force in the year 1959, the Rules having come into force thereafter, I am of the considered opinion that it is high time for the Principal Secretary Co-operative Department, the Registrar Co-operative Societies and the Principal Secretary e-Governance Department to implement an Information Technology System to verify and facilitate the compliance with all the requirement of the Act and the Rules.”
Regarding future improvements, the Court proposed: “The portal be designed in such a manner as to be able to gather and collate all the data required under the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules.” It further observed that such a system would “enable the Registrar of Co-operative Societies... to make submissions in relation to the compliances.”
The Court noted the economic and logistical challenges cited by societies, stating: “The preparation of Registered post itself takes considerable time and as such there is a delay in sending the Registered post... the cost of sending notices by Registered post is very expensive, putting at distress the meagre financial resources of the Co-operative Society.
”
It added that “a more feasible methodology of serving notices on all the members” could be considered, including digital means such as email, SMS, or WhatsApp, in line with evolving statutory practices.
Concluding the matter, the Court passed the following directions:
“The Writ Petition is allowed.”
“A certiorari is issued, notice dated 23.1.2025, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, is quashed. The declaration by the Respondent-Society as the petitioners are ineligible voters is set aside.”
“The petitioners having already cast their vote, the respondents are directed to count the said votes and declare the results of the election, if not otherwise injuncted in any other proceedings, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
“Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are directed to take necessary action against the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No.3 for not having complied with the mandatory requirements of Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 2A of Rule 13D of the Rules and file necessary report of the action taken against him within four weeks from today.”
“Though the above matter is disposed, re-list on 22.4.2025 for filing of detailed project report by the Principal Secretary Co-operative Societies/Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Principal Secretary e-Governance Department.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Krishna Gowda B., Advocate
For the Respondents: Yogesh D. Naik, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: M.R. Rukmangadha and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:9908
Case Number: W.P. No. 2246 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
[Read/Download order]
