Two-child rules for local polls 'have lost their relevance', Supreme Court says

The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that state laws barring people with more than two children from contesting local elections "have lost their relevance", and referred its own 2003 judgment upholding such laws to a larger bench for reconsideration.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe gave the ruling in the appeal of Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, a former sarpanch of Kakoda gram panchayat in Maharashtra's Amravati division, who was disqualified after the birth of her third child. The court said the reason behind such laws, the fear of overpopulation, "has crumbled" because India's total fertility rate has fallen from 3 in 2003 to 1.9 now, below the replacement level of 2.1, according to accounts of the judgment by LiveLaw, Bar & Bench and LawChakra.

What the court said

The case turned on Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which since 13 September 2000 has disqualified anyone with more than two children from being a panchayat member. Ingle was removed after a complaint to the Additional Collector; her appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, failed, and the Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification on 5 August 2025. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court's judgment in November 2025 and reserved its decision on 4 August this year.

"We are of the strong opinion that the laws which penalise having more than two children have lost their relevance," the bench said, as quoted by LawChakra. It criticised the reasoning of the 2003 judgment, Javed v State of Haryana, in which a three-judge bench upheld a similar provision in the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Such laws, the court said, force an "unconscionable choice between bearing children and democratic participation" and engage the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty. It also said they shut a class of citizens out of political representation for reasons with little bearing on their fitness for office, LiveLaw reported.

Because a bench of two judges cannot overrule a decision of three, the court stayed the proceedings and referred the question to a larger bench. Reports differ on what this means for Ingle herself: LiveLaw and LawChakra reported that her disqualification was set aside, while Bar & Bench and ETV Bharat reported only that the proceedings were stayed pending the larger bench. The judgment had not been published on the court's website when this report was filed.

Which states have such rules

During the hearing the court appointed advocate Rukmini Bobde as amicus curiae to compile state laws with a two-child condition. Her compilation showed that seven states have repealed such provisions and fifteen never had one, according to LiveLaw, which said the states that still have them include Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha and Uttarakhand.

Why it matters

Two-child rules for local elections date from a period when population control was a central policy aim: Haryana's was enacted in 1994 and Maharashtra's in 2000. The court's reasoning reflects a shift in the debate: with fertility now below replacement level, it noted that the population is not yet shrinking but that an ageing society with a smaller working-age share is the likely result over time.

The ruling does not strike down any law. Until the larger bench decides, the 2003 judgment remains binding and state laws with a two-child condition stay in force, though candidates disqualified under them can now point to the court's observations.

What happens next

The Chief Justice will decide when a larger bench is constituted to hear the reference. No date has been set.