Case at a Glance
A woman elected Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat in Maharashtra in 2022 lost her seat because she had a third child in 2014, which disqualifies a candidate under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. Hearing her appeal, the Supreme Court said laws penalising people for having more than two children appear to have lost their relevance as India’s total fertility rate has fallen to about 1.9, below replacement level. Because the 2003 decision in Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 07 SC CK 0091 upheld such a rule, the Bench referred the question of reconsidering Javed to a larger bench and stayed the High Court’s judgment, allowing her to continue as Sarpanch.
The appellant was elected Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat in the 2022 Panchayat elections. Her election was set aside on the ground that she was disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which bars a person with more than two children from contesting. She had given birth to her third child in 2014. Before the Supreme Court, her counsel argued that the third child was not conclusively proved because the place of issue of the birth certificate was allegedly invalid.
The Supreme Court made clear that it was not reviewing how the High Court had applied the governing law to the facts. It also noted that the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra provision had not been challenged, so it could not strike the provision down in this appeal. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does the reasoning in Javed v. State of Haryana, which upheld the two-child disqualification for panchayat elections in 2003, still hold good in an India whose fertility rate has fallen below replacement level?
From Population Control to Temporal Reasonableness
Justice P.S. Narasimha, writing for the Bench, traced how Javed upheld Haryana’s two-child disqualification under the Article 14 test, relying on the population concerns of the time and the National Population Policy, 2000. The judgment then set out the demographic shift since: citing Sample Registration System data, it recorded that the total fertility rate fell from 3.02 to 1.9 between 2003 and 2024 (and from 5.2 in 1971), that NFHS-6 (2023–24) puts it at “about 2.0”, and that the share of people aged 60 and above rose from about 8.3% in 2014 to 9.7% in 2024, with projections of nearly 15% by 2036. It also drew on the experience of China and Japan.
The Court invoked the doctrine of temporal reasonableness, quoting Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra that “a statute which when enacted was justified may, with the passage of time, become arbitrary and unreasonable”, along with Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, (2008) 04 SC CK 0108, and relied on Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1974) 04 SC CK 0023 and Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 05 SC CK 0011 on precedent responding to changed circumstances. It added that such restrictions bear on women’s political representation and on reproductive autonomy under Article 21 — “the choice of whether, when, and how many children to have” — and observed that “It does not bode well for a democracy with universal adult franchise to create such top-down restrictions.” At the same time it acknowledged that changes in legislative policy belong to the legislature and that it cannot direct a law to be repealed or amended.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Court considered that laws penalising persons for having more than two children appear to have lost their relevance in light of India’s falling fertility rate.
- The matter was referred to a larger bench “for reconsideration of the ratio laid down in Javed”; the Registry is to place it before the Chief Justice of India.
- The Court did not decide the validity of Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which was not under challenge.
- The High Court’s judgment was stayed, so the appellant may continue as Sarpanch until the civil appeal is disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Two-child disqualifications exist for local body elections in several States; a larger bench may now revisit the constitutional basis on which they were upheld.
- It applies the idea that a law justified when enacted can become arbitrary as social facts change.
- It links electoral disqualification with women’s representation and reproductive autonomy.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Candidates & Elected Members
- The two-child disqualification has not been struck down; it continues to apply unless a court stays its effect in an individual case.
- Anyone facing disqualification proceedings can cite the reference to show that the 2003 ruling is under reconsideration.
- Keep birth records and documents ready, as factual disputes over the number of children are decided on evidence.
For Counsel
- Note that the Court did not examine the provision’s validity because no challenge was raised; frame a specific constitutional challenge where appropriate.
- Rely on the demographic data, temporal reasonableness and Article 21 reasoning set out in the referral order.
- Seek interim protection in pending matters pending the larger bench’s decision.
Key Takeaways
- Correctness of Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) referred to a larger bench.
- India’s TFR has fallen to about 1.9, below replacement level, the Court recorded.
- Maharashtra’s two-child provision remains in force; its validity was not challenged.
- Ousted Sarpanch allowed to continue until the appeal is decided.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the Supreme Court struck down the two-child rule for panchayat elections?
No. It referred the question of reconsidering Javed v. State of Haryana to a larger bench. The Maharashtra provision was not challenged and remains in force.
What happens to the Sarpanch in this case?
The High Court’s judgment setting aside her election is stayed, so she may continue as Sarpanch until the civil appeal is disposed of.
Why did the Court think the rule needs a fresh look?
It recorded that India’s fertility rate has dropped below replacement level and the population is ageing, and that a law justified when enacted may become arbitrary with time.
Conclusion
The referral does not decide anything finally, but it reopens a 2003 precedent that has underpinned two-child disqualifications in local body elections. The larger bench will now decide whether Javed should continue to govern.
Practical takeaway: Candidates disqualified under a two-child rule should note that the rule still operates, but its constitutional foundation is under reconsideration; interim relief may be sought by citing this reference.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com