The Supreme Court has questioned the continued relevance of laws disqualifying people with more than two children from contesting local body elections, observing that changing demographic trends have undermined the rationale behind such restrictions. The court said India's declining fertility rate calls for a fresh examination of population-control laws and referred the landmark 2003 judgment in Javed v. State of Haryana to a larger bench.
The Supreme Court noted that India's Total Fertility Rate (TFR), which stood at 3 in 2003 when the court upheld the constitutional validity of the two-child norm in Javed v. State of Haryana, has now declined to 1.9.
The bench observed that the fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1. This decline is expected to lead to a demographic transition in which the population ages and the proportion of working-age people decreases.
Delivering the judgment, Justice P.S. Narasimha said, "We are of the firm opinion that laws penalising individuals for having more than two children have lost their relevance. The basis of these laws, namely the fear of overpopulation, has disappeared due to demographic changes over the past few decades."
The court further stated that India's Total Fertility Rate had declined from 3 to 1.9 since the 2003 judgment in Javed v. State of Haryana, in which the Supreme Court upheld restrictions on candidates with more than two living children.
Explaining the significance of the declining fertility rate, the court said a TFR of 2.1 is considered the replacement rate, which enables one generation to replace itself completely through the next generation.
Although India's population is not currently declining, the court observed that a fertility rate below the replacement level would soon lead to an ageing population and a reduction in the share of the working-age population.
The bench said laws aimed at restricting population growth had therefore lost their relevance. It warned that ignoring these demographic changes could have serious consequences for India.
The court also said these considerations had necessitated a halt to the proceedings and a reference of the matter to a larger bench.
With these observations, the Supreme Court referred the 2003 judgment in Javed v. State of Haryana to a larger bench. In that case, a three-judge bench had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which disqualified candidates from contesting local body elections if they had more than two living children.
Need to Reconsider Laws Disqualifying Candidates
The Supreme Court said the declining fertility rate in India makes it necessary to reconsider laws that disqualify individuals from contesting elections because they have more than two children.
The bench also expressed concern over the reasoning adopted in the Javed v. State of Haryana judgment to uphold the two-child norm. It observed that retaining such laws could exclude an entire section of citizens from political representation on grounds that have little connection with their ability to hold public office.
A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe also quashed the disqualification of Mangala Bhimrao, former Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat, under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. She had been disqualified following the birth of her third child.
The 1959 Act introduced a restriction on candidates having more than two children with effect from September 13, 2000, when the relevant amendment came into force.
The Supreme Court's decision to refer the 2003 ruling to a larger bench and quash Mangala Bhimrao's disqualification brings renewed judicial scrutiny to the two-child norm governing eligibility for local body elections, particularly in light of India's changing demographic trends.
About The Author
Comment List