Supreme Court Rules Laws Disqualifying Parents with More Than Two Children from Elections Have Lost Relevance

New-Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed the strong opinion that laws disqualifying persons having more than two children from contesting elections to local bodies have lost their relevance in view of India’s declining fertility rate. The top court noted that, following the decline in India’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR), such laws have lost their relevance. The observations came while the court set aside the disqualification of Mangala Bhimrao, a former Sarpanch of Maharashtra’s Kakoda Gram Panchayat, who had been barred from contesting elections following the birth of her third child. The Additional Collector had issued the disqualification order following a complaint filed against her, and the Additional Commissioner had subsequently dismissed her appeal. Thereafter, the Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification on August 5, 2025. The Supreme Court has now set aside her disqualification. Hence, the bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said that a law excluding persons from contesting elections on the ground of having more than two children violates reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. “We are of the strong opinion that laws that penalise having more than two children have lost their relevance. The foundation of such laws, that is, the fear of overpopulation, has crumbled due to demographic changes in the past few decades. We have explained how, since 2003, when Javed v State of Haryana upheld such laws, India’s total fertility rate has fallen from 3 to 1.9,” the Court observed. Pertinently, the Court referred the issue to a larger bench to decide on the validity of such a provision. “This has compelled us to stay the proceedings herein and refer the matter to a larger Bench. Allowing such a law to stand excludes an entire class of citizens from political representation on grounds bearing little relevance or rational connection to their capacity to hold public office. Further, it compels an unconscionable choice between bearing children and democratic participation, impinging upon reproductive autonomy under Article 21,” the Court underscored.