The Supreme Court has raised questions regarding the ongoing relevance of laws that disqualify individuals with more than two children from participating in local body elections. The court noted that the fear of overpopulation, which once justified such restrictions, has diminished due to changing demographic realities. This discussion occurred during a hearing on a petition filed by Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, whose election as sarpanch of Kakoda gram panchayat in Maharashtra was annulled based on her having more than two children.

The bench, consisting of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, highlighted the importance of reassessing legislation in light of contemporary social conditions rather than solely on the context in which it was enacted. The court emphasised that adapting to change is essential for achieving justice and warned against the potential for an irreversible decline in fertility rates.

Need for Policy Reassessment

The bench referred to a previous Supreme Court ruling from July 2003 in the case of Javed vs State of Haryana, which upheld provisions that disqualified individuals with more than two living children from holding panchayat positions. The court pointed out that India’s total fertility rate has decreased from 3.0 in 2003 to 1.9, suggesting a need to revisit policies related to population control.

The justices expressed concern that India might soon face an ageing population, with a significant proportion of individuals beyond working age. They cited examples from other countries, such as China and Japan, to illustrate the economic and developmental implications of demographic changes resulting from declining population growth.

The court underscored that the effects of a slowing population growth could be challenging to reverse, reinforcing the necessity for policies that align with current demographic realities.

Impact on Women’s Rights and Reproductive Autonomy

The court highlighted that son preference significantly influences reproductive decisions, leading families to have additional children until a male child is born. This cultural factor complicates the issue of reproductive autonomy, which the court acknowledged is not entirely beyond regulation but must be continuously assessed for reasonableness.

The justices remarked that imposing electoral disqualification based on the birth of a third child forces individuals to choose between their reproductive autonomy and their ability to participate in democratic governance.

Legal Principles and Future Implications

Invoking the principle of temporal reasonableness, the bench asserted that the constitutional validity of a law should not be determined solely by the circumstances at the time of its enactment. The court emphasised the necessity for laws to evolve alongside changing realities.

Additionally, the justices stated that reviewing the implementation of legislation is a vital aspect of the rule of law. While the court cannot direct the legislature to amend or repeal a law, it can evaluate whether the continued enforcement of that law remains constitutionally valid given altered circumstances.

The Supreme Court has referred the matter to a larger bench for a thorough reconsideration of the legal principles established in the 2003 Javed judgment. The court also confirmed that its previous interim order allowing Ingle to continue her role as sarpanch will remain effective until the appeal is resolved.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store – https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share