The Supreme Court has observed that laws barring individuals with more than two children from contesting elections have lost their relevance as India's fertility rate falls below replacement levels. Noting that penalizing family size infringes upon reproductive autonomy under Article 21, the bench stayed disqualification proceedings in a Maharashtra case and referred the matter to a larger bench due to looming demographic shifts and an aging workforce.

The Supreme Court has observed that laws barring individuals with more than two children from contesting elections have lost their relevance as India's fertility rate falls below replacement levels. Noting that penalizing family size infringes upon reproductive autonomy under Article 21, the bench stayed disqualification proceedings in a Maharashtra case and referred the matter to a larger bench due to looming demographic shifts and an aging workforce.

The Supreme Court has observed that laws barring individuals with more than two children from contesting elections have lost their relevance as India's fertility rate falls below replacement levels. Noting that penalizing family size infringes upon reproductive autonomy under Article 21, the bench stayed disqualification proceedings in a Maharashtra case and referred the matter to a larger bench due to looming demographic shifts and an aging workforce.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the statutory provisions barring individuals who have more than two children from contesting elections have lost their legal and practical relevance.

They cautioned that India may face structural risks such as an expanding ageing demographic and a contracting workforce if the legal frameworks ignore the declining birth rates.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe referred to the constitutional validity of such restriction to a larger bench and noted that penalising family size infringes upon reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The judges said that the central premise behind the law, a risk of population explosion, has dissipated over the recent decades as the country’s total fertility rate declined from 3.0 in 2003 to 1.9, falling below the 2.1 replacement mark.
Justice Narasimha pronounced the verdict, saying,“So even though India's population is not yet declining, the total fertility rate falling below the replacement rate would soon result in a demographic transition to an older population, with a declining share of the working population. Therefore, laws limiting population growth have lost its relevance. If we fail to take note of such demographic changes, India will face serious consequences...This has compelled us to stay the proceedings; we have referred the matter to a larger bench."
The court also expressed concern over the reasoning which was used in the Javed V. State of Haryana to uphold the two-child norm. They observed that continuation of the law would exclude an entire class of citizens from political representation.

“It compels an unconscionable choice between bearing children and democratic participation, infringing upon the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21,” the judge observed.

The observation was made during the hearing of a plea by a former Maharashtra Sarpanch, Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, who challenged her removal from the Kakoda gram panchayat under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, after the birth of a third child, Bar and Bench reported.

The court put a stay on the disqualification proceedings against Ingle and flagged a need to revisit the 2003 Javed V. Haryana ruling.

TAGS