Why the Supreme Court questioned the two-child rule for panchayat elections

📌 Summary:

• On July 14, the Supreme Court questioned whether laws disqualifying persons with more than two children from contesting panchayat elections continue to serve their original purpose

• The bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe pointed to India's declining fertility rate, observing: "the policy was to control population. Today, many States are saying the fertility rate is declining. Should this policy continue?"

• The bench indicated that the SC's own judgment in Javed v State of Haryana may require reconsideration

• Procedural steps: Advocate Rukmini Bobde appointed amicus curiae and asked to check whether similar two-child qualification laws still operate in other states; the petitioner's Advocate-on-Record Pratik Bombarde was asked to place relevant material on record

• Facts of the case: In 2023, a voter of Kakoda gram panchayat in Maharashtra's Buldhana district complained to the additional collector that sarpanch Mangala Bhimrao Ingle had a third child, citing a birth certificate and school records and alleging false information in her nomination papers

• Ingle denied a third child, arguing the birth certificate was issued by Hiwarkhed gram panchayat in neighbouring Akola district while she resides in Kakoda, and that a matching name did not prove the child was hers; her application to cross-examine the officials was rejected

• Outcome below: In October 2024 the additional collector held she had incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and removed her from office; her appeal to the additional commissioner was dismissed in April 2025; the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed her petition in August 2025

• The law: Section 14(1)(j-1) bars a person with more than two children from being elected as, or continuing as, a panchayat member. It exempts children born before the amendment took effect and children born in a single delivery within one year of commencement, accounting for pregnancies already underway

• Other states with similar provisions in local body laws, framed as part of family planning policy: Haryana, Rajasthan, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh

• Precedent — Javed v State of Haryana (2003): a three-judge bench led by Justice R C Lahoti upheld Section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which disqualified persons with more than two living children from holding office of Sarpanch, Panch, or member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad

• Reasoning in Javed: (a) the right to contest/elect is "neither a fundamental right nor a common law right… it is pure and simple, a statutory right", so the legislature creating it may prescribe disqualifications; (b) the classification was not arbitrary because persons with more than two living children are "clearly distinguishable"; the disqualification created a disincentive to popularise the family welfare programme; (c) the Article 21 challenge was rejected

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 — Polity (local self-government, Panchayati Raj, disqualification law, judicial review); GS1 — Society (population policy, demographic transition). Illustrates how a policy rational at one demographic stage may become obsolete as fertility falls below replacement level.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Section 14(1)(j-1), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 — two-child disqualification for panchayat office

• Javed v State of Haryana (2003) — upheld Section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; bench led by Justice R C Lahoti

• States with two-child local body disqualification: Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh

• Current bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe; amicus curiae: Advocate Rukmini Bobde

• Javed held the right to elect/contest is a statutory right, not a fundamental or common law right

🔑 Key Term: Amicus curiae — Literally "friend of the court"; a person, usually a lawyer, appointed by a court to assist it with an impartial analysis of law or facts in a case in which they are not a party.