The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the validity of continuing the two-child principle for contesting panchayat and other local body elections, stating that the policy, aimed at curbing population growth, may have exceeded its purpose in view of India’s declining fertility rate.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while hearing the plea against Maharashtra’s disqualification for having a third child, noted that it was willing to examine the larger rationale behind retaining such provisions in state laws and sought assistance from advocate Rukmini Bobde as amicus curiae.
“What kind of useless politics is this? The case of Javed v State of Haryana needs to be reconsidered. The country has changed,” Justice Narasimha said, referring to the 2003 Supreme Court judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of the two-child principle for candidates contesting local body elections.
The court noted that India’s demographic picture has undergone a major transformation since then, with the country’s total fertility rate now standing at around 1.7, while fertility rates in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu are lower than those in many Scandinavian countries.
“Perpetuating this policy of population reduction in the current situation could be completely unconstitutional,” the bench observed, questioning the logic of continuing with the policy designed to discourage population growth at a time when several states are now grappling with declining fertility rates.
The bench also noted that having three children has become uncommon.
“In your generation or mine, it is rare to have three children. It is just one child. This policy has lost its effect. It should be withdrawn immediately. Rival candidates are using it as a weapon. We are concerned about this policy,” Justice Narasimha said.
The observations came as the bench was hearing a petition filed by Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, former Maharashtra sarpanch, who had challenged the Bombay High Court ruling upholding her disqualification under Section 14 (1) (j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. The provision bars people with more than two children from contesting or holding the office of a panchayat or sarpanch.
Engel was elected Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat in Buldhana District. However, a complaint alleging that she had given birth to a third child led to proceedings before the Additional Collector, who disqualified her in October 2024. The Additional Commissioner dismissed her appeal, and the Bombay High Court confirmed the decision in August 2025, holding that the birth certificate relied upon by the authorities was a public document with presumptive probative value and that Engel had failed to disprove it.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench noted that it was usually inclined to interfere with the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, she pointed out that the tenure of the elected panchayat has almost ended. The petitioner’s counsel, Pratik R Bombardi, pointed out that the Supreme Court had already stayed the implementation of the Supreme Court ruling in November last year.
The hearing then moved from the facts of the case to the broader questions surrounding the two-child rule.
The bench asked Bobde, who was representing the Maharashtra government in the matter, to ascertain how many states still have similar disqualification provisions and also inquired whether states have reconsidered such laws in the light of changing demographic realities.
When Bobde stated that fertility rates had declined primarily in urban areas, the court asked her to examine the issue more closely before the next hearing.
The court referred the matter for further consideration on July 28.
The Supreme Court upheld the two-child rule for contesting local body elections in Javed v. State of Haryana (2003), holding that exclusion of candidates with more than two children was a reasonable restriction intended to promote family planning and did not violate constitutional safeguards.
