'Population Explosion More Dangerous Than Hydrogen Bomb': Orissa High Court Upholds Disqualification For Having More Than Two Children

While denying relief to the appellant, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash made a cautionary note of the devastating effects of population explosion. In the words of the Court–

“Overpopulation being a complex & multifaceted global issue presents a mammoth challenge to the delicate balance of our only planet and its limited resources. The unchecked population growth places immense strain on environmental, societal & economic systems. There is almost a global unanimity of opinion that overpopulation causes environmental degradation, resource scarcity and intensified societal challenges.”

The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (DRCS) issued a notice dated 19.11.2024 to the appellant whereby he was disqualified from the membership of Capital Cooperative Housing Limited. It was issued for giving effect to Section 28(3)(p) of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 (the '1962 Act'), which enshrines a 'two-child' policy. As the appellant had begotten a third child, he was issued the aforesaid notice.

Being aggrieved, he challenged the notice before the High Court. A Single Bench, upon hearing his submissions in the writ petition, rejected his plea by holding–

“The present case is straightforward, devoid of complex factual intricacies requiring deep investigation. Letter No. 489 dated 22.08.2024, issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths, Health Officer, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, unequivocally establishes that the petitioner has three children, with the youngest born in 2007. This fact is further corroborated by the Birth Certificate of Bibhunandan Mohanty (Issue No. 1717/2023), which clearly identifies him as the petitioner's child.”

Having failed to secure any relief from the Single Judge, the appellant preferred this intra-court appeal challenging the decision. Senior Advocate Prafulla Kumar Rath, appearing for the appellant, argued that his disqualification was given effect to without affording an opportunity of hearing. However, the Court did not find a semblance of substance in such argument.

“The vehement submission of Mr. Rath that his client was not given an opportunity of hearing is unsustainability, inasmuch as admittedly he was given notice of the proceedings and he has filed his Written Submission wherein not even a whisper is made denying the allegation that he has more than two children. Simply saying the subject provision of the Act is not attracted, would not come to his protection. The opportunity of hearing does not mean oral submissions are to be permitted despite filing the reply in writing to the notice in question.”

The further contention was that he is not the father of the third child and his paternity was wrongly reflected, which has been rectified later on. He further drew reference to the election case of his wife wherein the Court, after assessing evidence, has given imprimatur to the denial of parenthood of the third child. Nevertheless, the Court took such contention with a pinch of salt by observing–

“Admittedly, in the original Birth Register, an extract of which is a part of the record herein, Appellant's name is reflected in father's column of third child. However, post lis rectification has been secured by showing the name of other person in his stead. That person is none other than his own brother. No explanation is offered as to how Appellant's name was entered in the Register, much less wrongly. The Discharge Summary of the Hospital also does not generate confidence. It lacks the material particular as to who had furnished the information to the Hospital officials to make entries.”

Above all, citing several authorities, the Bench reiterated that the result of an election petition is essentially in rem and not in personam. In other words, the appellant not being a party to the election dispute of his wife, he cannot claim benefit of the ruling which ensued such petition.

Furthermore, refuting the appellant's challenge to the authority of the DRCS to issue the impugned disqualification notice, the Court held him to be a competent authority under the 1962 Act for discharging the aforesaid duty as a “conscience keeper”.

Resultantly, having no ground for entertaining the appeal, the Court dismissed the same with the following remark–

“The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced Entry-20A 'Population Control & Family Planning' to the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule with effect from 03.01.1977. This introduction is not without significance. It was made in the wake of rapidly growing population in the country so that Centre & States can devise policies to control the growth rate, in concurrent competence. Such provisions are found in several legislations, one of such other being Section 25(1)(v) of Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. Section 28(3)(p) of the 1962 Act is a positive measure to check the population growth, that has crossed Malthusian Danger Mark in the country.”

Case Title: Sri Biswaranjan Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.A. No. 365 of 2025

Date of Judgment: June 30, 2026

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Budhadev Routray, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Milan Kanungo, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.B. Panda, Additional Government Advocate; Mr. Goutam Mishra, Sr. Advocate for Intervener; Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate for Caveator

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 69