The Maharashtra government has approved a significant change to the state’s cooperative sector by allowing the appointment of five government-nominated directors to the boards of large cooperative institutions with an annual turnover exceeding ₹500 crore. The decision has triggered a political controversy, particularly over the Kolhapur District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union, popularly known as Gokul Dairy, where the ruling Mahayuti alliance and the Opposition Congress are locked in a battle for control.
The state Cabinet approved an amendment to the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, on Wednesday, November 4. Under the proposed arrangement, four of the five government-appointed directors will have voting rights, while the fifth will be a government official of at least the rank of assistant registrar and will not be entitled to vote.
The four voting members are expected to be individuals with professional experience in managing cooperative institutions. However, none of the government-nominated directors will be eligible to contest elections for key office-bearer positions, including the chairman’s post.
The amendment will apply to cooperative institutions with an annual turnover of more than ₹500 crore that receive government assistance. District Central Cooperative Banks have been excluded from the proposed changes.
While the government has presented the decision as a measure to improve the functioning of large cooperative institutions, Opposition parties have questioned its timing and purpose. They allege that the amendment is aimed at changing the balance of power in Gokul Dairy after the Congress-backed panel secured a majority in its recent board elections.
The controversy centres on the recent elections to the Gokul Dairy board, one of Maharashtra’s most influential cooperative institutions.
In the October 19 elections, the panel led by Congress leader Satej Patil, known as the Rajarshi Shahu Shetkari Samavichari Aghadi, won 13 of the 25 director positions. The Mahayuti-backed panel, supported by the BJP, Shiv Sena and NCP factions, secured the remaining 12 seats.
The result gave the Congress-backed group a narrow majority and the numbers to elect its preferred candidate as chairman.
However, the election of the chairman has remained unresolved because the Mahayuti-backed directors did not attend the scheduled board meeting. At least 14 directors are required to be present to meet the quorum.
The Congress-backed panel subsequently approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the delay in completing the chairman’s election. The court directed that a fresh meeting be convened on November 10.
The state government’s latest decision has added another dimension to the dispute. If four government-nominated directors with voting rights join the board, the voting strength could shift in favour of the ruling alliance.
The arithmetic could change from the existing 13-12 split to a potential 16-13 advantage for the Mahayuti-backed side, provided all four nominees support it.
Gokul Dairy is a major player in Maharashtra’s cooperative milk sector. Established in 1963, the organisation recorded an annual turnover of approximately ₹3,966 crore in 2024-25. It works with thousands of village-level milk societies and a large network of milk producers across the Kolhapur region.
The Cabinet’s decision has drawn a sharp response from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who accused the BJP of attempting to overturn the mandate given by milk producers.
In a social media post on Thursday, November 5, Gandhi described the move as an attempt to interfere with the election outcome. He alleged that after losing the Gokul Dairy election, the BJP-led government had changed the rules to bring in four additional voting directors and alter the board’s majority.
Calling the development a theft of milk producers’ votes and an adulteration of their mandate, Gandhi accused the BJP of using political influence to retain control over institutions where it had lost elections.
He also warned that farmers would remember attempts to undermine their electoral decisions.
Congress leaders have argued that the government’s decision undermines the autonomy of cooperative institutions. They maintain that elected representatives should be allowed to manage the organisation according to the mandate received from its members.
Satej Patil has also criticised the amendment, arguing that the government cannot disregard the results of an election simply because its preferred panel failed to secure a majority.
He has indicated that the decision will be challenged legally.
The Opposition is also examining legal precedents, including a 2022 Gujarat High Court ruling concerning government-nominated directors at Amul Dairy. The court had struck down a government decision to nominate directors to the cooperative’s board.
Congress leaders have indicated that they intend to pursue the matter before higher judicial forums, including the Supreme Court.
The Maharashtra government, meanwhile, has justified the proposed changes by pointing to the growing financial and administrative responsibilities of large cooperative institutions.
Government officials have argued that organisations handling substantial public funds and government assistance require greater transparency, professional expertise and effective administrative oversight.
The existing provisions, according to the government’s position, may not always be sufficient to resolve administrative deadlocks or ensure smooth decision-making in large cooperative bodies.
The government-nominated experts are expected to bring additional management experience to the boards and help protect the interests of members and stakeholders.
However, critics argue that granting voting rights to government-appointed members could weaken the authority of elected representatives and give the ruling establishment greater influence over cooperative institutions.
The controversy is particularly significant because Maharashtra has a strong cooperative movement, with dairy unions, sugar factories, banks and other institutions playing an important role in the state’s rural economy.
The Gokul Dairy dispute has therefore become more than a contest for a chairman’s position. It has raised wider questions about political interference, cooperative autonomy and the authority of elected boards.
