Supreme Court Criticizes Two-Child Norm for Panchayat Candidates in Maharashtra

The Supreme Court has criticized the enforcement of the two-child policy for candidates in panchayat elections in Maharashtra, describing it as ‘useless’ in today’s demographic context. The case, Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Ors, was heard by a Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe. The petitioner, Mangala Bhimrao, a former sarpanch from Maharashtra, challenged her disqualification for having more than two children.

The Bombay High Court had previously upheld her disqualification under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the counsel representing Ingle argued that her disqualification was based on the birth of a third child, as concluded by the authorities.

Justice Narasimha expressed skepticism about the relevance of the two-child policy, citing India’s evolving demographic landscape and questioning its necessity given the country’s declining fertility rate. “What kind of useless policy is this? The case of Javed v. State of Haryana requires reconsideration. The country has changed,” remarked Justice Narasimha. He highlighted that India’s fertility rate has dropped to approximately 1.7, with coastal states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala reporting rates lower than those of some Scandinavian nations.

The Court expressed concern over the continued enforcement of a policy originally intended to curb population growth, stating it now seems “completely unconstitutional”. Justice Narasimha questioned the rationale behind maintaining such a policy in the present demographic scenario.

Ingle’s journey began when she was elected as the sarpanch of the gram panchayat in Kakoda, Maharashtra. A complaint was lodged, citing her disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which prohibits individuals with more than two children from serving as panchayat members or sarpanch.

In October 2024, the additional collector in Buldhana disqualified Ingle, and her appeal was dismissed by the additional commissioner of the Amravati division. In August 2025, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed both orders, relying on a birth certificate as evidence of the third child, which Ingle could not refute.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Bench noted that although it would typically overturn the High Court’s decision, the elected body’s term was nearing its end. The Court had already stayed the High Court’s judgment in November 2025.

The Bench then addressed the broader issue of whether similar disqualification provisions exist in other states, instructing the counsel to investigate. “Please find out how many states still have such policies,” directed the Bench.

Advocate Rukmini Bobde, representing the State of Maharashtra, was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court on this issue. Justice Narasimha observed that while some states enforce such disqualifications, others have introduced incentives to boost population growth. “In your generation or my generation, it is a rarity to have three children. It is only one. This policy has lost its effect. It should immediately be withdrawn. Rival candidates use it as a weapon. We are concerned about this policy,” the Court noted.

Bobde highlighted that fertility rates have primarily decreased in urban areas, prompting the Bench to request further examination. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 28, with Advocate Pratik R Bombarde representing the petitioner, Mangala Bhimrao Ingle.