SC Observes Laws Penalising Over Two Children Outdated Amid Drop In India's Fertility Rate

The Supreme Court of India ruled that statutory provisions penalising individuals with more than two children from contesting local body elections have lost their fundamental relevance, citing a steep decline in national fertility metrics.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the disqualification of a Maharashtra sarpanch, Mangala Bhimrao, while formally referring the 2003 Javed v. State of Haryana judgment which previously upheld the constitutional validity of two-child restrictions to a larger bench for complete reconsideration.

Demographic Transition Undermines Statutory Penalties

Pronouncing the judgment, Justice PS Narasimha highlighted that India's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) dropped from 3.0 in 2003 to 1.9 today, sliding well below the replacement threshold of 2.1. The court noted that statutory restrictions built on historical fears of rapid overpopulation have effectively crumbled alongside shifting demographic realities.

"Laws limiting population growth have lost their relevance. If we fail to take note of such demographic changes, India will face serious consequences," Justice Narasimha stated.

 The bench further warned that maintaining stringent population controls alongside a falling birth rate risks precipitating an accelerated transition toward an aging population and a shrinking national workforce.

Infringement On Democratic And Reproductive Rights

The legal challenge reached the apex court after the Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of Mangala Bhimrao under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, following the birth of her third child. Reversing that order, the Supreme Court stressed that barring individuals from grassroots governance based on family size inflicts an unjustified constitutional penalty.

The court observed that enforcing two-child disqualifications excludes a substantial category of citizens from civic participation on grounds entirely disconnected from their fitness for public office. The bench further noted that forcing candidates to choose between expanding their family and exercising political franchise directly violates fundamental reproductive autonomy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Patchwork Enactments Face Supreme Court Review

The apex court noted significant legislative divergence across the country regarding population control rules. While fifteen states maintain no such restrictions and seven have repealed earlier measures, states including Maharashtra, Gujarat, Assam, Goa, Odisha, and Uttarakhand continue to enforce two-child eligibility bars for panchayat and municipal candidates.

Concluding that state-level population penalties conflict with modern economic structures and personal freedoms, the bench stayed further proceedings under existing challenges and referred the overarching question of the rule's constitutional sustainability to a larger bench of the Supreme Court.