Supreme Court says two-child disqualification laws have lost relevance as India's fertility falls

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 4, 2026) said that the rolling effect of decelerating population growth is very hard to reverse, and stressed the need to guard against a potentially irreversible decline in fertility while responding to changing demographic realities.

A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the observations while deciding a plea by Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, whose election as sarpanch of Kakoda gram panchayat was set aside on the ground that she was disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, because she had more than two children.

The Bench said laws that penalise having more than two children have lost their relevance because the fear of overpopulation has diminished amid demographic changes over the past few decades. It said the continued relevance and justification of a law must be assessed in the light of contemporary social realities, and not solely by reference to the circumstances that existed when it was enacted.

“Adapting to change is important for achieving justice, as failure to adapt produces injustice and is, in a sense, an abuse of power. Thus, failure to use power to adapt to change is in its own way an abuse of power,” the Bench said.

The court said legal reform through legislative correction improves the legal system, but requires an assessment of how a law works in practice, including its accessibility, utility and possible abuse. It also said the executive branch has a constitutional duty to ensure that the purpose and object of a statute are achieved while implementing it.

“Reviewing and assessing the implementation of a statute is an integral part of the Rule of Law. The purpose of such review is to ensure that a law is working out in practice as it was intended. If not, to understand the reason and address it quickly,” it said.

The Bench observed that a law enacted to address a particular social problem may cease to serve its intended purpose when the circumstances underlying it have materially changed. While the court cannot direct the legislature to repeal or amend a law, it can examine whether the continued operation of that law remains constitutionally sustainable in the light of changed circumstances, it said.

Noting that India’s total fertility rate has fallen from 3.0 to 1.9 since 2003, the court referred to its July 2003 verdict in Javed versus State of Haryana. In that case, the Supreme Court had examined the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and upheld the disqualification of persons with more than two living children from contesting or holding panchayat positions.

The Bench said policies must be in tune with present realities. “We need to guard against potentially irreversible decline in fertility and respond to the changing demographic realities,” it said. It added that India may soon face an ageing population, with a disproportionately large share of people beyond working age.

Citing international experience, the court said such demographic shifts carry risks. It referred to China and said the rolling effect of decelerating population growth is very hard to reverse. Beyond China, other nations are also bearing the weight of a declining and ageing population, it said.

“Japan, for instance, after years of severe population decline, continues to face high public debt and high public expenditure on health and long-term care for its ageing population, all of which add to its fiscal and developmental challenges,” the Bench said.

The court’s remarks do not by themselves repeal any law. They concern whether provisions such as the two-child disqualification rule can continue to be constitutionally justified as the demographic context changes.