Measures To Curb Population Growth Unsatisfactory; Dire Steps Needed On War Footing: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has upheld the disqualification of a Gram Panchayat Member for having more than two children, which is a statutory ground of disqualification as per Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 ['the 1964 Act'].

Repelling the challenge to a Single Bench order which affirmed such disqualification, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash interestingly observed –

“Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) is said to have said "India is not a nation, but mere population". This was long before the Partition, when the then population of undivided India was about 30 Crores or so. What caustic comment he would have made, had he been alive today, will drive one to wild imagination.”

The appellant, who previously held the position of a Member of Gram Panchayat, was terminated from the Panchayat membership on the ground of having more than two children. Such termination was premised upon the statutory prescription provided under Section 25(1)(v) of the 1964 Act.

Being aggrieved by such removal, he filed a writ petition impugning the same. However, to his utter dismay, the Court found such termination to be in tandem with the law and thus, dismissed the petition. Therefore, he filed this writ appeal further challenging the judgment of the single bench.

The counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the single bench order on the ground that the proviso to Section 25(1)(v) protects membership of the appellant, and the single bench faulted in ignoring the said provision and illegally upholding the termination.

Notably, Section 25(1)(v) says that a person shall be disqualified for being elected or nominated as a Sarpanch or any other member of the Grama Panchayat if he has more than two children. However, it is qualified by a protective proviso which reads as below –

“Provided that the disqualification under Clause (v) shall not apply to any person who has more than two Children on the date of commencement of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1994 or, as the case may be, within a period of one year of such commencement, unless he begets an additional child after the said period of one year.”

It is an admitted fact that the appellant begot his third child on 11.03.1993 and the fourth child on 06.11.1994. He, thus, argued that he should be exempted from being disqualified since he comes under the protective umbrella of the proviso to the said provision. Notwithstanding such submission, the Bench held –

“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 Center [sic] & States can devise policies to control the growth rate. The Proviso to Clause (v) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act is one small measure in that direction…Thus, the said Proviso was already in force since the preceding 18 years or so. Thus, the case of Appellant is one of Text Book for attracting the disqualification clause, the protective Proviso remaining miles away.”

The Bench, speaking through Justice Shripad, not only made reference to precedents affirming and reaffirming the goal to control the population, but also cited the works of a number of scholars as well as report of the Bodies of United Nations to sum up the demerits and devastating effects of population explosion.

“There is almost a global unanimity of opinion that overpopulation causes environmental degradation, resource scarcity and intensified societal challenges. It is not in the domain of Court to enlist all other disastrous consequences of rapid population growth in general and the demographic changes associated with such growth, in particular. People are degrading ecosystems so thoroughly that future generations likely will have a hard time living decent lives.”

The Court even urged the Law Commission of India to recommend appropriate law and policy to control the population explosion in India.

“We have made the above observations to express our deep concern as to the imminent population explosion, and to stress the dire need for devising appropriate policies on war footing to halt the same. It is appreciable that the Parliament decades ago sensed the danger and brought about the Forty-Second Amendment to the Constitution introducing Entry 20A to the Concurrent List as already mentioned above. This was to enable the promulgation of policy, legislative or otherwise. However, we are constrained to observe that the measures hitherto taken to retard population growth rate, are far from satisfactory. It is high time that the Constitutional Institutions and the Civil Society do something in the matter.”

On the basis premise, the Court found hardly any merit in the writ appeal, which was accordingly dismissed. The copy of the judgment was directed to be forwarded to the Law Commission of India's Chairperson.

Case Title: Maheswar Jena v. Madhusudan Dalai & Others

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1962 of 2025

Date of Judgment: January 15, 2026

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Pratik Nayak, B. Mishra, A. Mishra & P. Patnaik, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. Millon Kumar, A. Khandelwal & P. Khandelwal, Advocates for the Private Respondent; Smt. Suman Pattanayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 12

Click Here To Read/Download Order