The Supreme Court has observed that laws disqualifying individuals from contesting local body elections for having more than two children have lost their relevance amid India's declining fertility rate. The Court also raised concerns over the impact of such restrictions on reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe referred the issue to a larger bench for reconsideration, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Javed v. State of Haryana, which upheld the constitutional validity of the two-child norm.
Background
The matter arose from a challenge filed by Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, a former Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat in Maharashtra, against her disqualification for allegedly having a third child.
The disqualification was imposed under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Additional Collector, Buldhana, disqualified her in October 2024, and the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, subsequently dismissed her appeal.
The Bombay High Court upheld these orders on August 5, 2025. Aggrieved by the decision, Ingle approached the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, the bench examined whether the rationale behind the two-child norm remained relevant in present-day India. The Court highlighted the significant decline in India's total fertility rate, which had fallen from 3 in 2003 to 1.9.
"The bench noted that the circumstances which originally justified the two-child restriction have changed considerably. It pointed out that India's fertility rate has declined from 3 in 2003 to 1.9, making it necessary to reconsider whether laws aimed at controlling population growth continue to serve their intended purpose."
The bench also expressed concern that such restrictions could prevent an entire section of citizens from participating in democratic institutions without establishing any meaningful connection between family size and the ability to hold public office.
"The Court expressed concern that disqualifying individuals from electoral participation solely because they have more than two children could unfairly restrict their democratic rights. It observed that family size has little connection with a person's ability to discharge public responsibilities and that such restrictions raise serious questions about the right to reproductive autonomy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Considering the constitutional questions involved and the changing demographic circumstances, the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger bench to examine the validity of the two-child disqualification provisions.
The Court also stayed the proceedings against Ingle under the Maharashtra law.
