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 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 said the SC's own judgement in Javed v State of Haryana may require reconsideration; it appointed Advocate Rukmini Bobde as amicus curiae to check whether similar two-child qualification laws still operate in other states, and asked the petitioner's counsel 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 who produced the documents was rejected

• 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, and the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed her petition in August 2025

• What the law says: 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)

• Similar provisions exist in the local body laws of Haryana, Rajasthan, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, framed as part of family planning policy

• 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

• The Javed reasoning, in three strands: (1) On the right being restricted — "a right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right", so a legislature creating the right may also prescribe conditions and disqualifications (2) On arbitrariness — "persons having more than two living children are clearly distinguishable from persons having not more than two living children"; the classification was linked to popularising the family welfare programme, the disqualification acting as a disincentive (3) On Article 21 — the Court rejected the claim that personal liberty includes a right to procreate without consequence for holding office, holding it "futile to assume or urge" that the law violates the right to life and liberty however expanded its meaning

• Javed's operative reasoning: anyone free to have more than two children may do so, "but then he should pay a little price" by being deprived of office

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 — Panchayati Raj and local body disqualifications, judicial review of population-control policy, and the tension between Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 and 21) and statutory electoral conditions. Also GS1/GS2 on demographic transition, since the Court's doubt rests on declining fertility rates.

📝 Prelims Facts:

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

• 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 similar two-child local body provisions: Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh

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

• Javed held the right to elect is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but a statutory right

🔑 Key Term: Amicus Curiae — literally "friend of the court"; a person, usually a senior advocate, appointed by a court to assist it with impartial submissions on questions of law or fact where the court needs independent help, as distinct from counsel representing either party.