Supreme Court refers two-child-norm precedent Javed v. State of Haryana to a larger bench

Mangala Bhimrao Ingle's election as Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat was set aside on the ground that she had more than two children, in violation of Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. In Javed v. State of Haryana (2003), the Supreme Court had upheld a similar two-child disqualification for panchayat office, reasoning that controlling population growth was a legitimate objective. Revisiting that premise, this bench noted that India's Total Fertility Rate has fallen from 3.0 to 1.9 over two decades — below replacement level — undercutting the 'population explosion' assumption on which Javed rested.

Drawing on Article 21 jurisprudence recognising reproductive autonomy as part of personal liberty and dignity — including Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, and X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, NCT of Delhi — the Court held that disqualifying a person from elected office for bearing a third child forces an impermissible choice between reproductive autonomy and democratic participation. It observed that even a law valid when made can become invalid once its underlying factual foundation changes, and referred the correctness of Javed's ratio to a larger bench for reconsideration. Pending that reference, the Court stayed the High Court's order, allowing the appellant to continue as Sarpanch.