The Orissa High Court upheld the disqualification of a gram panchayat member for having more than two children, reaffirming population control and family planning objectives. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has upheld the disqualification of a gram panchayat member under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, due to having more than two children. This decision reaffirms the significance of family planning and population control in both constitutional and policy contexts.
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, consisting of Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash, dismissed an appeal contesting the disqualification based on the stipulations of Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.
The appellant had approached the High Court to challenge a single judge’s order dated December 5, 2025, which had rejected his writ petitions. He argued that he fell under the proviso to Section 25(1)(v) since his third and fourth children were born in 1993 and 1994. However, the court pointed out that the two-child limit was introduced through an amendment that took effect on April 18, 1994.
Since the appellant had more than two children after this date, the court concluded that he was not entitled to the proviso’s protection. Justice Dixit, who authored the judgment, clarified the limits of the proviso to Section 25(1)(v), explaining that the exception only applies to those who had more than two children at the time the amendment took effect or within one year thereafter, and who did not have any additional children afterwards.
The Bench found that the appellant’s situation clearly breached this condition, thereby validating the disqualification.
In a notable section titled “A Fragment on the Laudable Policy of Family Planning & Its Dire Need,” Justice Dixit elaborated on the urgent necessity for population control. He referenced Winston Churchill’s historical remark that “India is not a nation but mere population,” and suggested that Churchill’s criticism would be even sharper today given the current demographic scenario.
Also Read: ‘Punjab Panchayat Polls Case’: Supreme Court Seeks State’s & Election Commission Response
The court drew on the insights of thinkers such as Malthus and Bertrand Russell, along with data from UNFPA and WHO, to highlight the effects of overpopulation on environmental sustainability, natural resources, and socio-economic development.
Justice Dixit referred to the Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment, which included “Population Control and Family Planning” in the Concurrent List, underscoring the State’s policy aim to stem unchecked population growth. Odisha, as mentioned in the judgment, is one of the states prioritized for targeted interventions to manage demographic challenges.
The judgment also emphasized the responsibility of elected representatives to model appropriate behavior:
“If they themselves violate the norm, what example can they set before the public?”
The court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the constitutionality and importance of the two-child norm for public representatives in panchayati raj institutions, while strongly reiterating the policy significance of family planning for India’s sustainable development.