The Supreme Court on July 14 questioned whether laws disqualifying persons with more than two children from contesting panchayat elections continue to serve their original purpose.
The bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe pointed to the fertility rate in India, observing that “the policy was to control population. Today, many States are saying the fertility rate is declining. Should this policy continue?” It also referred to Javed v State of Haryana, noting that the SC’s judgement may require reconsideration.
It appointed Advocate Rukmini Bobde as an amicus curiae and asked her to check whether similar two-child qualification laws still operate in other states. The bench also asked petitioner’s counsel, Advocate-on-Record Pratik Bombarde, to place the relevant material on record.
Facts of the case
In 2023, a voter of the Kakoda gram panchayat in Maharashtra’s Buldhana district filed a complaint before the additional collector alleging that the sarpanch, Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, had a third child. The complainant cited a birth certificate and school records, claiming that Ingle, who had been elected a year earlier, had given false information in her nomination papers.
Ingle denied having a third child. She said that the birth certificate produced was issued by the Hiwarkhed gram panchayat in neighbouring Akola district, while she is a resident of Kakoda in Buldhana. She filed an application asking to cross-examine the officials who produced the documents, arguing that a matching name did not prove the child was hers. That application was rejected.
In October 2024, the additional collector held that Ingle had incurred disqualification under Section 14(1) (j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959 and removed her from office. Her appeal before the additional commissioner was dismissed in April 2025.
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, in its August 2025 order, dismissed her petition and upheld the findings of the additional collector and the additional commissioner. It said that the documents, including the birth certificates of three children, supported the finding that Ingle had incurred disqualification.
What the law says
Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, bars a person from being elected as, or continuing as, a panchayat member if the person has more than two children.
The clause exempts children born before the amendment took effect, and children born in a single delivery within one year of the amendment’s commencement. This accounts for pregnancies already underway when the law came into force.
Since the amendment, anyone with more than two living children cannot hold a panchayat office in Maharashtra. Haryana, Rajasthan, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have similar provisions in their local body laws, framed as part of family planning policy.
Supreme Court precedent
The Supreme Court first tested a two-child disqualification law in Javed v State of Haryana (2003). The case concerned Section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which disqualified a person with more than two living children from holding the office of Sarpanch, Panch, or member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad.
A three-judge bench led by Justice R C Lahoti upheld the provision.
On the right being restricted, the court held that “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.” A legislature creating such a right could also prescribe conditions and disqualifications for it, the court said.
On the law being arbitrary, the court held that “persons having more than two living children are clearly distinguishable from persons having not more than two living children”. It said the law set to popularise the family welfare or planning programme linked with this classification, with the disqualification meant to “achieve the objective by creating a disincentive.”
On the challenge under Article 21, the bench rejected the claim that personal liberty included a right to procreate without consequence for holding office, noting that it would be “futile to assume or urge that the impugned legislation violates right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 in any of the meanings howsoever expanded the meanings may be.”
In its operative part, the court said, “If anyone chooses to have more living children than two, he is free to do so under the law as it stands now but then he should pay a little price and that is of depriving himself from holding an office in Panchayat.” It held the disqualification “seeks to achieve a laudable purpose socio-economic welfare and health care of the masses and is consistent with the national population policy,” and upheld the Haryana provision.
Why declining fertility rates matter
The Supreme Court’s observations reflect a broader demographic shift in India. The country’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) — the average number of children a woman is expected to have in her lifetime — has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1, according to government surveys. As a result, several states that once focused on population control are now grappling with ageing populations and slowing population growth.
Some states have already begun encouraging larger families. In June, Andhra Pradesh announced cash incentives for couples having a second or third child after its TFR fell to around 1.5, well below the replacement level. Sikkim, where the TFR has been about 1.1 in recent years, has also introduced financial incentives and childcare support to encourage childbirth.
The decline is widely linked to rising education levels, better healthcare, urbanisation and changing social and economic choices, particularly among women. The changing demographic context formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s question on whether laws enacted to discourage larger families continue to serve their original purpose.
The Supreme Court on July 14 questioned whether laws disqualifying persons with more than two children from contesting panchayat elections continue to serve their original purpose. 
Share
