In a significant shift, Supreme Court observed that the two-child norm "has lost relevance" and referred its 2003 judgment upholding disqualification of panchayat members with more than two children to a larger bench.
The 2003 case Javed vs Haryana upheld Haryana law barring those with >2 children from panchayat polls. Court then said population control was imperative. In 2026, bench led by CJI notes India's TFR is now 1.9, below replacement 2.1, expected to be 1.6 by 2035.
India's population will peak at 1.65 bn in 2060, then decline. Southern states already have 1.4 TFR, ageing crisis. Bihar still 2.7, but dropping.
The clause exempting children born before amendment but counting twins as one now looks arbitrary, court said. Cases of disqualification based on third child born during second delivery due to twins have come up.
From policy view, this is welcome. India's coercive population measures - forced sterilisation legacy - never worked. Kerala, Tamil Nadu reduced fertility via education, health, not bans. Uttar Pradesh's draft population bill 2021 proposing similar disqualification is now shaky.
For democracy, norm also discriminates against Muslims, Dalits, poor with less access to contraception. Data shows SC/ST fertility higher due to infant mortality, not desire.
The court warned measures to control population that discriminate violate Article 14. It said development, not disqualification, is way.
The larger bench will decide if states can still bar >2 child candidates. If struck down, Rajasthan, MP, Maharashtra, Odisha panchayat laws will need amendment.
For India at crossroads - needing more workforce to exploit demographic dividend before ageing - penalising third child is counterproductive. We need more children, better raised.
Tags: #SupremeCourt #TwoChildNorm #TFR #PopulationPolicy #JavedVsHaryana #Panchayat #FertilityRate #Constitution #Article14 #DemographicDividend