Supreme Court Refers Two-Child Disqualification Law for Local Body Elections to Larger Bench

The Supreme Court has called for a fresh look at laws that bar people with more than two children from contesting local body elections. The court held that India’s changing demographic profile has weakened the basis for such restrictions and raised concerns about political representation, women’s rights and reproductive autonomy under Article 21.

In a 37-page judgment delivered on November 4 in Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Ors, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe referred the issue to a larger bench for reconsideration of the 2003 ruling in Javed v. State of Haryana.

The judgment, delivered on November 4, also flagged the impact of such laws on women and electoral participation. As an immediate step, the court stayed a Bombay High Court order against Mangala Bhimrao Ingle and allowed her to continue as sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat until the civil appeal is decided.

Demographic Shift

The bench recorded that India’s Total Fertility Rate fell from 3.02 in 2003, when Javed was decided, to 1.9. That is below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1, which is the average needed for one generation to replace itself without migration.

“We are of the strong opinion that laws that penalise having more than two children have lost their relevance. The foundation of such laws, that is, the fear of overpopulation, has crumbled due to demographic changes in the past few decades,” the court stated.

The bench clarified that India’s total population has not begun to fall because of demographic momentum created by earlier decades of higher fertility. It added that contraceptive use, better women’s education and delayed marriages and first childbirth have pushed fertility lower.

Ageing Workforce

The court noted that the share of people aged 60 and above rose from 8.3% in 2014 to 9.7% in 2024. Government projections, it said, show that figure could rise to nearly 15% by 2036.

The judgment referred to the Economic Survey 2025-26, which projected that about 65% of India’s population would be in the 15-59 age band around 2030. It also said the working-age population is expected to cross 98 crore over the next decade.

The bench also drew from foreign examples. China ended its one-child policy in 2015 and later allowed three children in 2021, while offering incentives for childbirth. Japan’s ageing population, high public debt and healthcare spending were cited as further examples of the strain linked to low fertility.

Earlier Precedents

The legal backdrop remains central. In Javed v. State of Haryana in 2003, the Supreme Court upheld provisions of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Those provisions disqualified people with more than two living children from contesting or holding panchayat posts.

That ruling relied on concerns about population growth and its economic effects. It held that the restriction did not violate Article 14.

The present bench questioned whether that reasoning can still stand after two decades of demographic change. It indicated that the factual base that supported Javed may no longer hold.

Women And Autonomy

The bench also examined the effect on women. It observed that women may bear a heavier burden because reproductive decisions are often shaped by patriarchal family structures. That, the court suggested, makes a formally neutral rule work unevenly in practice.

The judgment referred to a 2009 study in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat that was sponsored by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj. According to the court, the study recorded forced abortions, abandonment of pregnant wives and denial of paternity to escape electoral disqualification.

It also discussed son preference and gender-biased sex selection. The bench said these pressures affect family planning across socio-economic groups.

Tracing the policy history, the court said the idea could be linked to the K. Karunakaran Committee. The committee had recommended disqualifying candidates with more than two children across elected offices, from panchayats to Parliament.

The judgment noted that the Constitution (Seventy Ninth Amendment) Bill, 1992 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha but political consensus did not emerge. It added that a draft Cabinet Note to withdraw it was prepared in 2007, yet no decision followed, and no matching central law was enacted.

The bench held that reproductive choices, including whether and when to have children, fall within Article 21. It said electoral penalties force people to choose between having children and taking part in democratic governance.

State Rules And Relief

The state picture is uneven. According to a compilation submitted by amicus curiae Rukmini Bobde, seven states have repealed the two-child norm and 15 states do not have such a policy. Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha and Uttarakhand still retain restrictions.

The bench referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration of Javed. It also directed the Registry to place the judgment before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate bench.

For the petitioner, the relief was immediate. The Supreme Court stayed the Bombay High Court’s order against Mangala Bhimrao Ingle and allowed her to continue as sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat until disposal of the civil appeal.