The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the validity of continuing with the two-child norm for contesting panchayat and other local body elections, observing that the policy, conceived to curb population growth, may have outlived its purpose in light of India’s declining fertility rate.
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while hearing a challenge to the disqualification of a Maharashtra sarpanch for having a third child, indicated that it was willing to examine the larger rationale behind retaining such provisions in state laws and sought assistance of advocate Rukmini Bobde as an amicus curiae.
“What kind of useless policy is this? Javed Vs State of Haryana needs reconsideration. The country has changed,” remarked Justice Narasimha, referring to the Supreme Court’s 2003 judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of the two-child norm for candidates contesting local body elections.
The court observed that India’s demographic profile has undergone a significant transformation since then, with the country’s total fertility rate now hovering around 1.7, while states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu have fertility rates lower than those of several Scandinavian countries.
“To perpetuate this policy to reduce population in the present situation could be completely unconstitutional,” observed the bench, questioning the logic of continuing a policy designed to discourage population growth when several states are now grappling with falling fertility rates.
{{/usCountry}}“To perpetuate this policy to reduce population in the present situation could be completely unconstitutional,” observed the bench, questioning the logic of continuing a policy designed to discourage population growth when several states are now grappling with falling fertility rates.
{{/usCountry}}The bench also noted that having three children has itself become uncommon.
“In your generation or my generation, it is a rarity to have three children. It is only one. This policy has lost its effect. It should immediately be withdrawn. Rival candidates use it as a weapon. We are concerned about this policy,” Justice Narasimha remarked.
The observations came while the bench was hearing a petition filed by former Maharashtra sarpanch Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, who challenged a Bombay high court judgment upholding her disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The provision bars persons having more than two children from contesting or holding the office of a panchayat member or sarpanch.
Ingle was elected sarpanch of Kakoda gram panchayat in Buldhana district. However, a complaint alleging that she had 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 affirmed the decision in August 2025, holding that the birth certificate relied upon by the authorities was a public document carrying presumptive evidentiary value and that Ingle had failed to rebut it.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench remarked that it would ordinarily have been inclined to interfere with the high court’s judgment. However, it noted that the tenure of the elected panchayat was almost over. Counsel for the petitioner, Pratik R Bombarde, pointed out that the Supreme Court had already stayed the operation of the high court’s judgment in November last year.
The hearing then shifted from the facts of the case to the broader questions surrounding the two-child norm.
The bench asked Bobde, who was appearing for the Maharashtra government in the matter, to ascertain how many states continue to retain similar disqualification provisions and enquired further whether states have revisited these laws in light of changing demographic realities.
When Bobde submitted that fertility rates had primarily declined in urban areas, the bench asked her to examine the issue more closely before the next hearing.
The court posted the matter for further consideration on July 28.
The two-child norm for contesting local body elections was upheld by the Supreme Court in Javed Vs State of Haryana (2003), where it ruled that disqualifying candidates with more than two children was a reasonable restriction intended to promote family planning and did not violate constitutional guarantees.