The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that laws that penalise having more than two children have lost their relevance since the fear of overpopulation has crumbled due to demographic changes in the past few decades as seen in the fall in fertility rate from 3 to 1.9 [Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Ors]
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.
Hence, it proceeded to stay proceedings under a Maharashtra law against a sarpanch who was disqualified from her post for having a third child.
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.
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.Supreme Court
The Court was hearing a plea filed by a former Maharashtra sarpanch, Mangala Bhimrao Inge, challenging her disqualification for having a third child.
The Bombay High Court had earlier upheld Ingle's disqualification under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
The case arose from Ingle's election as sarpanch of gram panchayat Kakoda in Maharashtra.
A complaint was subsequently filed alleging that she had incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which bars persons having more than two children from holding the office of a panchayat member or sarpanch.
The additional collector at Buldhana disqualified Ingle in October 2024, and the additional commissioner of Amravati division dismissed her appeal.
In August 2025, the Bombay High Court upheld both orders, holding that the birth certificate relied upon by the authorities was a public document carrying presumptive value and that Ingle had failed to rebut the evidence establishing the birth of a third child.
Ingle then approached the Supreme Court.
During one of the earlier hearings, the Court had termed the policy as useless.
It had then turned to the larger issue of whether similar two-child disqualification provisions continue to exist in other States and had directed the counsel to ascertain the position.
The Court had also appointed advocate Rukmini Bobde, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, as amicus curiae to assist it on the larger issue.
After considering the submissions of the parties, the bench today found it fit to refer the matter to a larger bench.
[Read Live Coverage]