Supreme Court quashes former sarpanch disqualification, questions relevance of two-child norm

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court has quashed the disqualification of a former village sarpanch in Maharashtra, ruling that laws penalising individuals for having more than two children have lost their relevance in modern India.

A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the disqualification of Mangala Bhimrao, who had served as the sarpanch of Kakoda gram panchayat. Alongside granting relief in the case, the bench referred the landmark 2003 judgment in Javed versus State of Haryana—which had previously upheld similar two-child restrictions under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act—to a larger bench for reconsideration. The court also stayed related proceedings in the matter.

The ruling marks a significant judicial reassessment of population-control eligibility rules enforced by various states for local body elections. According to the bench, the foundational premise underpinning such legislation has shifted considerably over time.

The court noted that India’s total fertility rate has dropped from 3 in 2003 down to 1.9, falling below the standard replacement level of 2.1. Observing these demographic shifts, the bench stated that the historical fear of overpopulation that justified restrictive legislation has crumbled over the past few decades.

Mangala Bhimrao had been unseated under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, following the birth of her third child. That statutory provision, in force since September 2000, bars individuals with more than two children from contesting or holding panchayat posts.

The referral of the Javed precedent to a larger bench opens the pathway for a broader legal examination of local body disqualification norms across states that continue to enforce restrictions based on family size.