The Supreme Court has said Two-Child Norm Laws that disqualify people with more than two children from contesting local body elections have lost their relevance, with India’s total fertility rate now below the replacement level, and has sent the 2003 Javed ruling to a larger bench.
New Delhi: A former sarpanch of the Kakoda Gram Panchayat in Maharashtra, unseated after the birth of her third child, has had her disqualification set aside by the Supreme Court, which said in the same ruling that laws penalising people for having more than two children have lost their relevance because of India’s falling fertility rate. Delivering the verdict on Wednesday (November 4), the Court expressed a strong opinion against such laws and referred its 2003 ruling in Javed v. State of Haryana, which upheld such a bar for panchayat elections, to a larger bench [Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and Others].
The verdict came from a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, and Justice Narasimha pronounced it in open court.
A fertility rate of 1.9
India’s total fertility rate has dropped from 3 in 2003, the year Javed was decided, to 1.9 today, below the replacement rate of 2.1, the Court noted. Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Narasimha said:
“We are of the strong opinion that the laws which penalise having more than two children have lost their relevance. The foundation of such laws, that is the fear of over population, has crumbled due to demographic changes in the past few decades.”
Population is not yet declining, the bench said, but a fertility rate below replacement level would soon bring a shift to an older population with a shrinking share of working-age people. It added:
“Therefore, laws limiting population growth have lost its relevance. If we fail to take note of such demographic changes, India will face serious consequences…This has compelled us to stay the proceedings, we have referred the matter to a larger bench.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Women Sarpanchs: Removal Shouldn’t Be Taken Lightly!
Doubts about how Javed was reasoned
The Court also questioned the reasoning in Javed, which upheld the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Such a bar, it observed, shuts a whole class of citizens out of political representation on grounds unrelated to their ability to hold office:
“Equally concerning is the reasoning employed in Javed to justify a manifestly arbitrary act. Allowing such laws to stand excludes an entire class of citizens from political representation on grounds bearing little relevance to their capacity to hold public office. Further, it compels an unconscionable choice between bearing children and democratic participation, infringing upon the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21.”
The sarpanch’s case
The petitioner, Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, was disqualified as sarpanch under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, which has been in force since September 13, 2000 and disqualifies a person who has more than two children. A complaint before the Additional Collector led to the disqualification order, and her appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, was rejected.
By an order dated August 5, 2025, the Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification. She could not distance herself from the birth certificate of her third child, which named both parents, it held, and there was no material to show otherwise. She then filed a Special Leave Petition, and on November 4, 2025 the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment.
The bench reserved judgment on August 4, 2026, saying it would consider whether Javed needed to be reconsidered. It sought a list of State laws imposing the two-child bar from the amicus curiae, Advocate Rukmini Bobde, and the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Pratik Bombarde. Their compilation showed that seven States have repealed the norm and fifteen never had one, while States including Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha and Uttarakhand still retain it.
What the reference changes, and what it does not
States have relied on Javed v. State of Haryana for more than two decades to keep candidates with more than two children out of panchayat and municipal elections. A two-judge bench cannot overrule a three-judge ruling, so the reference to a larger bench is the route by which that precedent can now be re-examined.
The verdict reframes the debate in two ways. It says the factual basis for the laws, the fear of overpopulation, no longer holds, and it treats the bar as a question of reproductive autonomy under Article 21 and of equal political participation. Until the larger bench rules, the two-child norm remains on the statute book in the States that retain it, but the Court’s view gives those affected a strong basis to challenge it.
Case Title: Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and Others [SLP(C) No. 30772 of 2025]
Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: November 4, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Pratik Bombarde for the petitioner; Advocate Rukmini Bobde as amicus curiae