New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the continued relevance of laws that disqualify people from contesting local body elections for having more than two children, observing that the fear of overpopulation underlying such provisions has weakened amid India’s declining fertility rate.
A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe referred the issue to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the court’s 2003 ruling in Javed v. State of Haryana, which had upheld the constitutional validity of a two-child norm for certain elected Panchayat positions.
The court said the demographic circumstances that had formed the basis of the earlier judgment had changed significantly over the past two decades.
“We are of the strong opinion that laws that penalise having more than two children have lost their relevance. The foundation of such laws, i.e. the fear of overpopulation, has crumbled due to demographic changes in the past few decades,” the Bench observed.
Why Has the Supreme Court Referred The Two-Child Norm To A Larger Bench?
The case arose from a petition filed by Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, whose election as sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat was set aside because she had more than two children.
Her disqualification was based on Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
The provision bars individuals with more than two children from holding certain elected Panchayat positions. The dispute brought the constitutional validity and continued application of such restrictions before the Supreme Court.
In its 2003 judgment in Javed v. State of Haryana, the top court had upheld a similar provision under Haryana law. That law disqualified people with more than two children from holding specified Panchayat offices.
The present Bench said the earlier ruling was based on the assumption that population growth was an impediment to the country’s progress. It observed that the demographic foundation supporting that reasoning had since changed.
The judges directed the Registry to place the judgment and order before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate larger Bench.
The referral does not by itself strike down the two-child disqualification provision. The larger Bench will reconsider the legal position and the reasoning laid down in the 2003 judgment.
Supreme Court Cites Falling Fertility Rate In India
The Bench referred to demographic figures to explain why it believes the issue requires reconsideration.
According to Sample Registration System estimates cited by the court, India’s crude birth rate declined from 36.9 births per 1,000 people in 1971 to 18.3 in 2024.
The country’s total fertility rate (TFR) also fell from 5.2 children per woman to 1.9 during the same period.
The court noted that a TFR of 2.1 is generally considered the replacement-level fertility rate, at which one generation replaces itself without migration.
India’s reported fertility rate of 1.9 is therefore below that threshold, the Bench observed, adding that the country’s large population often obscures the implications of declining population growth.
The judges also highlighted the increase in India’s elderly population. The share of people aged 60 and above rose from around 8.3% in 2014 to 9.7% in 2024. Government projections cited in the judgment place the figure at nearly 15% by 2036.
The Bench said falling fertility would mean a smaller proportion of younger people in the coming years and a corresponding increase in the ageing population.
Reproductive Autonomy Is Part Of Article 21, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court also examined the two-child norm from the perspective of reproductive autonomy and constitutional rights.
It observed that the freedom to make reproductive decisions is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
According to the Bench, the State cannot indirectly compel people to make particular reproductive choices by imposing adverse civil or political consequences.
The judges clarified that reproductive autonomy is not entirely beyond regulation, but any restriction must be continuously examined for its reasonableness.
The court also questioned whether electoral disqualification for having a third child places individuals in a position where they must choose between exercising reproductive autonomy and participating in democratic governance.
Court Flags Impact Of Two-Child Norm On Women
The Bench referred to a 2009 study sponsored by the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj that examined the implementation of the two-child norm in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat.
It noted that applying the restriction within a patriarchal social framework had often weakened women’s position instead of empowering them, as envisaged under the 73rd Constitutional Amendment.
The study highlighted that reproductive decisions in many households are influenced by husbands, while women may bear the consequences of those decisions, including disqualification from elected office.
The court observed that a woman could therefore lose her electoral eligibility because of a reproductive decision over which she might have little or no control.
The larger Bench will now reconsider the legal principles governing two-child disqualification provisions in the light of changing demographic realities and constitutional protections.
