INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India, in Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Ors., 2026 INSC 1193, referred the continued validity of laws disqualifying persons with more than two children from contesting local body elections to a larger Bench. A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that the demographic assumptions underlying such restrictions had changed, with India’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) falling below the replacement level. The Court also made observations about political representation and reproductive choice in light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
BACKGROUND
The matter came before the court due to the disqualification of Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, whose election as Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat was nullified after she had a third child in 2014. Her disqualification was done under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. She was disqualified by the Additional Collector in October 2024, and her appeal against the same was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division. The disqualification was affirmed by the Bombay High Court in August 2025.
The provision reflects a wider approach adopted by certain States to discourage larger families by making persons having more than two children ineligible to contest or hold specified local body offices.
KEY POINTS
- The Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger Bench for reconsideration of Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369.
- The three-judge bench in Javed held the validity of the two-child disqualification clause in the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, on the ground of population explosion and its effect on development.
- It pointed out that the Total Fertility Rate of India has fallen from around 3.0 in 2003 to 1.9, which is lower than the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.
- It pointed out that such limitations will deprive people of their right to participate in politics and affect their reproductive rights under Article 21.
- The Court stayed the proceedings concerning Ingle’s disqualification and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate larger Bench.
ANALYSIS
The Court considered whether the reasoning in Javed could continue to sustain two-child disqualification laws in light of present demographic realities. It explained that TFR measures the average number of children a woman would have during her reproductive years. Referring to the Sample Registration System, the Court noted that India’s TFR had fallen to 1.9, below the replacement level of 2.1. Although the country’s overall population has not begun to decline, falling fertility could lead to an ageing population and a reduced proportion of working-age persons.
The Court emphasized that a law justified when enacted may become unreasonable when its underlying rationale no longer exists. It was based on the doctrine of temporal reasonableness established in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 1, and Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 287. Constitutional validity, the Court observed, cannot always be assessed solely by reference to the conditions existing when a law was introduced.
The Bench also questioned the impact of these restrictions on democratic participation. Having more than two children, it reasoned, bears little rational connection to a person’s ability to discharge public responsibilities. Such a disqualification might deprive citizens of their political representation at the local level and compel people to opt between having children and being involved in democracy. Thus, the Court referred to the matter in relation to reproductive rights guaranteed by Article 21.
The decision also took into account the impact of Javed in subsequent cases such as Rajbala v. State of Haryana, (2016) 2 SCC 445, where new requirements for eligibility for Panchayat election were approved. It should be noted that the implications of the decision in Javed were not limited only to the population question but extended to the involvement of women and marginalized groups in politics.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court has not finally struck down the two-child disqualification provisions. It has referred the issue to a larger Bench for reconsideration of Javed. The decision places demographic change, equal political participation and reproductive autonomy at the center of the constitutional debate. The larger Bench’s determination will clarify whether population-control restrictions can continue when the demographic and constitutional context has substantially evolved.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- PRIYANSHI CHOUDHARY
