Does 2-Child Policy Require Reconsideration? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

The Supreme Court today (August 4) reserved judgment on a petition challenging the bar on persons with more than two children from contesting elections to the Panchayat and other local bodies in Maharashtra. The Court orally stated it will consider whether Javed v State of Haryana(2003) requires reconsideration by the present bench or requires a reference to a larger bench.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a petition about disqualification incurred by a former Sarpanch at the Kakoda Gram Panchayat, Mangala Bhimrao, under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, on the birth of her third child. The 1959 Act imposed a cap of more than two children from September 13, 2000, when the amendment to the legislation was enforced.

While hearing the matter on the last occasion, the bench orally expressed that the Javed judgment, where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which disqualified candidates with more than two living children from contesting local elections, needs reconsideration.

In Javed v State of Haryana(2003), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1994 Act, which disqualified candidates with more than two living children from contesting local elections.

Today, Advocate Rukmini Bobde(amicus curiae) and Advocate Pratik Bombarde(for petitioner) submitted a compilation of State laws that have similar provisions barring more than two children and States that have repealed them.

As per the compilation filed by Bobde, seven States have repealed the two-child norm, whereas fifteen States don't have such a policy. In summary, there is no uniform approach adopted across States. States that continue to have the two-child norm include Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Uttarakhand. 

In the last hearing, the Supreme Court had directed the lawyers in the matter to compile the state laws, referring to The Economist article on the declining fertility rate in India. 

Justice Narasimha, after hearing the counsels briefly, asked if Javed is a constitution bench judgment. Pratik responded that it's a judgment by a three-judge bench. In this context, it was also informed about another three-judge bench judgment by the Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Jat v State of Rajasthan(2024) which upheld the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, disqualifying a candidate from applying to a police constable post for having more than two children by relying on the Javed judgment.

Hearing this, the Court reserved the matter for judgment.

To give a factual background, a complaint against Mangala was filed before the Additional Collector, based on which the proceedings were initiated and an order was passed of disqualifcation. She appealed before the Additional Commissioner, which came to be rejected, against which he approached the Bombay High Court.

By an order dated August 5, 2025, the High Court found that the petitioner tried to distance herself from the birth certificate of her third child, but the document can't be discarded as it mentions the names of both parents. Considering that there was no material to show otherwise, the High Court upheld the disqualification. Against this order, she filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.