The legal analysis of the constitutional amendments, particularly Part IXB related to cooperative societies, hinges on the procedural requirements outlined in the Constitution, notably the ratification process specified in the proviso to Article 368(2). The core issue is whether the insertion of Part IXB without the requisite ratification by at least half of the State legislatures renders the amendment unconstitutional and non est (!) (!) .

The constitutional scheme clearly demarcates the legislative powers between the Union and the States, with entries in the legislative lists (List I, II, and III) defining the scope of authority. Entry 32 of the State List (List II) specifically pertains to the subject of cooperative societies, and the power to legislate on this subject is primarily reserved to the States (!) (!) (!) .

The amendment process for constitutional changes involves both procedural and substantive limitations. The procedural requirement under the proviso to Article 368(2) mandates that certain amendments—especially those affecting legislative and federal structures—must be ratified by at least half of the State legislatures before being presented for Presidential assent (!) (!) (!) .

Inserting Part IXB into the Constitution, which imposes significant restrictions and conditions on State legislatures’ power to legislate on cooperative societies, effectively alters the legislative landscape. This change substantially impacts the legislative competence of the States, thereby affecting the federal balance. Since the amendment alters the scope of legislative authority reserved to the States, it triggers the requirement of ratification under the proviso (!) (!) (!) .

The doctrine of severability becomes relevant when assessing whether the entire amendment, including parts that failed to receive proper ratification, can be upheld. If the non-ratified provisions are inseparable from the rest, the entire amendment may be deemed invalid. Conversely, if the valid parts are independent and can stand on their own, they may be severed and upheld, provided they do not depend on the invalid portions for their operation (!) (!) (!) .

In the context of Part IXB, the provisions that substantially impact the legislative powers of the States—such as restrictions on the scope of State laws and the automatic cessation of existing laws incompatible with Part IXB—are considered to have a significant effect on the federal structure. Therefore, they require proper ratification (!) (!) (!) .

The application of the doctrine of severability to these provisions hinges on whether the main purpose of the amendment can be fulfilled without the invalid portions. If the core objectives can be achieved independently, then the valid provisions may survive, and the invalid ones can be severed. However, if the invalid provisions are fundamental to the scheme, the entire amendment risks invalidity (!) (!) .

In the specific case of the 97th Amendment, the absence of ratification by the requisite number of States renders the entire insertion of Part IXB, including its definitions and restrictions, unconstitutional and invalid. This invalidity impacts the provisions that are directly linked to the legislative competence of the States, rendering those provisions stillborn unless severed and upheld separately (!) (!) .

Furthermore, provisions applicable to multi-State cooperative societies and Union territories are treated differently. While some parts may be severable and thus valid, the parts directly affecting State legislative powers without proper ratification are invalid. The application of the doctrine of severability depends on the independence and operability of the valid parts after excising the invalid portions (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the constitutional amendments that significantly alter the legislative competence of the States, especially without the mandated ratification, are constitutionally infirm. The doctrine of severability may allow parts of the amendment to be upheld if they are independent and capable of functioning without the invalid portions. Otherwise, the entire amendment, particularly those parts that impact federal principles, must be declared invalid for want of proper ratification (!) (!) .