The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that laws penalising an individual for having more than two children have lost relevance due to India’s declining fertility rate, remarking that such laws violate reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“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 the demographic changes in the past few decades,” the bench of Justice PV Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said. “Since 2003, when Javed v. State of Haryana upheld such laws, India’s total fertility has fallen from 3 to 1.9,” the bench added.
Consequently, the court stayed proceedings against Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, a sarpanch from Maharashtra, who was disqualified from her office on grounds of having three children. It also referred the issue of the validity of such laws to a larger bench.
“Allowing such a law to stand excludes an entire class of citizens from political representation on grounds bearing little relevance or rational connection to their capacity to hold public office. Further, it compels an unconscionable choice between bearing children and democratic participation, impinging upon reproductive autonomy under Article 21,” the Court observed.
What was the case about?
The case pertains to a petition filed by an ex-Maharashtra Sarpanch, Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, who had challenged her disqualification from the office for having a third child.
Ingle was elected as the sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kakoda in Maharashtra. However, she was disqualified in 2024 after a complaint was filed against her under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The complaint alleged that she violated Section 14(1)(j) of the Act, which prohibits persons with more than two children from holding a Panchayat office.
When Ingle appealed before the additional commissioner challenging her disqualification, her appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, she approached the Bombay High Court, which denied her relief by upholding earlier orders. This led her to move the Supreme Court.
To recall, the top court had described the contested Maharashtra law as “useless” earlier in July this year. It had also converted the matter of disqualification of office holders for having more children into a larger issue, appointing Advocate Rukmini Bobde as the amicus curiae. In today’s hearing, the issue has been referred to a larger bench for examination.
