The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a 2009 directive issued by the Jharkhand government that required cooperative societies to obtain an additional verification from the assistant registrar before availing stamp-duty exemptions on the registration of property transfer documents.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held that the state’s decision imposed “unnecessary, excessive requirements” on societies, declaring the directive illegal and unsustainable in law.
Justice Narasimha, writing the judgment, said simplicity in public dealings was a key component of transparent governance. The court observed that public administration should function through clear, straightforward procedures that enable “effortless compliance” rather than spawning avoidable hurdles.
“Simplicity in public transactions is good governance. Constitutional courts uphold this virtue to strengthen the rule of law and ensure access to justice,” the judgment stated, adding that administrative procedures must avoid “complexity, redundant requirements and unnecessary burdens, which waste time, expense and disturb peace of mind.”
The state directive, issued on February 20, 2009, mandated that sub-registrars grant exemption under section 9A of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988 only after obtaining a recommendation from the assistant registrar confirming the existence of the cooperative society seeking exemption.
The court said this step served no purpose and was based on “irrelevant considerations.”
“Once a cooperative society is registered and a certificate is issued, it is a conclusive proof of its existence and continuation as a body corporate,” the bench noted, adding that insisting on additional verification was “superfluous, redundant and illegal.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Swawlambe Society Limited, which had challenged the memo after both a single judge and division bench of the Jharkhand High Court upheld the government’s position, reasoning that the additional scrutiny prevented misuse of stamp-duty exemption.
The apex court disagreed, holding that the executive cannot impose requirements that add no value to the integrity of the process.
By setting aside the government directive and the High Court rulings, the Supreme Court underscored a broader principle: when statutory certification already achieves its intended purpose, the state cannot burden citizens with additional procedural gatekeeping “under the guise of regulation.”
