Supreme Court Upholds ‘One Member, One Vote’ In Housing Societies
Bye-Laws Cannot Override Statutory Rights, Rules Apex Court In Landmark Ruling
In a ruling with far-reaching implications for cooperative housing societies, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the principle of “one member, one vote” under the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960, clarifying that society bye-laws cannot dilute or override this statutory right.
The verdict came in the case of Veena Kumari Tandon vs. Neelam Bhalla and Others, where the apex court dismissed an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that granted every admitted member of a housing society an equal right to vote.
The Dispute
The controversy arose in the Merry Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai, where the managing committee restricted voting rights by applying a “one family, one vote” formula. This meant that even if multiple members of the same family owned different flats, only one would be allowed to vote.
Several members objected and moved court after their names were excluded from the final voter list. The Bombay High Court ruled in their favour, holding that every admitted member is entitled to vote, regardless of family ties.
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Bench of Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Harjit Singh Bedi upheld the High Court ruling, interpreting Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960.
The Court observed:
- Section 27 is clear and unambiguous — each admitted member has one vote.
- Bye-laws cannot contradict statutory provisions — while societies may frame rules, they cannot take away legal rights provided under the Act.
- The concept of “one family, one vote” has no statutory basis and cannot be enforced.
- Ownership of multiple flats by a family does not affect the independent membership and voting rights of individual family members.
The Court also cited earlier rulings that subordinate legislation (bye-laws) must conform to the legislative intent and cannot act in derogation of it.
The Verdict
Dismissing the appeal filed by Veena Kumari Tandon, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order and imposed ₹10,000 in costs.
Justice Sinha stated:
“If the legislative Act provides for the concept of ‘one person, one vote,’ no bye-law can create another concept so as to defeat the legislative object.”
Why This Matters
This judgment strengthens democratic rights within cooperative housing societies, especially in urban areas like Mumbai where families often own multiple flats. Legal experts say it will:
- Prevent managing committees from curbing membership rights through restrictive bye-laws.
- Ensure fair and equal representation of all society members.
- Provide clarity in disputes where developers or societies attempt to control voting strength.
