Introduction
The Supreme Court has observed that laws disqualifying individuals with more than two children from contesting local body elections have lost their relevance in view of India’s declining fertility rate. The Court noted that the population-control rationale behind these restrictions has weakened considerably due to changing demographic conditions.
A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe referred the 2003 decision in Javed v. State of Haryana to a larger Bench for reconsideration. In that judgment, a three-judge Bench had upheld the constitutional validity of the two-child norm under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, holding that the disqualification did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
In the present case, the Court also set aside the disqualification of Mangala Bhimrao, a former Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat, under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which disqualifies a person having more than two children.
Background
The dispute arose after a complaint was filed against Mangala Bhimrao before the Additional Collector, alleging that she had a third child in violation of the two-child norm under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
The provision introduced a disqualification for persons having more than two children after September 13, 2000. Following the complaint, the Additional Collector initiated proceedings and disqualified her from holding the position of Sarpanch.
Mangala challenged the decision before the Additional Commissioner, but her appeal was rejected. She subsequently approached the Bombay High Court.
By an order dated August 5, 2025, the High Court upheld the disqualification. It observed that the petitioner had attempted to distance herself from the birth certificate of her third child. However, the document contained the names of both parents, and there was no material to establish otherwise.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, she approached the Supreme Court. On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the impugned High Court judgment.
Legal Issue
The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the constitutional validity of laws imposing a two-child limit for contesting local body elections, as upheld in Javed v. State of Haryana (2003), required reconsideration in light of India’s changing demographic conditions.
The Court also examined whether continuing such disqualifications was consistent with the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court Ruling
The Supreme Court expressed the view that laws penalising individuals for having more than two children had lost their relevance. It observed that India’s total fertility rate had declined from approximately 3 in 2003, when Javed was decided, to 1.9.
The Bench noted that the replacement fertility rate is approximately 2.1. A rate below this level, if sustained, can eventually lead to an ageing population and a declining proportion of working-age people.
The Court also referred to China’s population-control policy. It noted that China had abandoned its one-child policy in 2015 and subsequently introduced measures encouraging families to have more children. However, these policy changes had not produced the desired demographic shift.
The Bench further observed that India’s fertility rate falling below the replacement level could bring significant demographic changes. It cautioned that ignoring these developments could have serious consequences.
The Court also expressed concern over the reasoning adopted in Javed to uphold the two-child norm. It observed that such restrictions could exclude an entire class of citizens from political representation for reasons that have little connection with their ability to hold public office.
The Court also considered the different approaches adopted by States. A compilation submitted by amicus curiae Advocate Rukmini Bobde indicated that seven States had repealed the two-child norm, while fifteen States did not have such a policy. States continuing to impose the restriction included Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha and Uttarakhand.
Finding that the constitutional question required reconsideration, the Bench referred the 2003 decision in Javed v. State of Haryana to a larger Bench. It also set aside Mangala Bhimrao’s disqualification under the Maharashtra law.
Implications
The reference to a larger Bench brings the constitutional validity of the two-child norm in local body elections under reconsideration. However, the 2003 decision in Javed has not been overruled at this stage. Its legal position will require consideration by the larger Bench.
The observations also raise important questions about the relationship between population-control policies, electoral participation and reproductive autonomy. If the larger Bench revisits the earlier ruling, its decision could have implications for State laws that continue to disqualify candidates from local elections on the basis of the number of children they have.
The reference to a larger Bench does not itself invalidate the two-child norm across India. The Javed ruling remains the existing precedent until reconsidered by the larger Bench. Also, the article treats the setting aside of Mangala Bhimrao’s disqualification as a separate outcome in her case, not as a nationwide removal of the statutory disqualification.
