Two-Child Norm: Supreme Court Refers Panchayat Poll Bar to Larger Bench

A Supreme Court bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe on Wednesday, 4 November, referred the question whether laws barring people with more than two children from local body elections should survive to a larger bench. The Court said the fear of overpopulation behind such laws “has crumbled due to demographic changes”, and stayed disqualification proceedings against a former Maharashtra sarpanch, Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, according to LiveLaw and other reports of the order.

Panchayat Candidates Get Interim Relief

For now, the stay protects Ingle, who was removed as sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act after her third child was born. Whether other people already disqualified under similar laws can claim the same relief will depend on what the larger bench decides. The bench also said such laws shut out “an entire class of citizens from political representation”, and reports of the order say it linked them to reproductive autonomy under Article 21.

A 2003 Ruling Under Review

The reference concerns Javed v State of Haryana, decided in 2003 by a three-judge bench, which upheld Haryana’s two-child bar for panchayat polls. The Court cited India’s total fertility rate, which has fallen from about 3 in 2003 to 1.9.

Also read Aruna Roy Case: Supreme Court Says Voter Awareness Cannot Be Monopolised

The bench had reserved its order on 4 August after an amicus curiae and the petitioner’s counsel filed a compilation of state laws. It showed seven states have repealed two-child restrictions and fifteen never had them, while Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha and Uttarakhand still keep them. The Bombay High Court had upheld Ingle’s disqualification on 5 August 2025; the Supreme Court stayed that order on 4 November 2025. In 2024, a three-judge bench in Ramji Lal Jat v State of Rajasthan relied on Javed to uphold a similar rule for police recruitment.

No Date Yet for the Larger Bench

The reports do not give a hearing date. Until the larger bench rules, the six states that retain the norm can keep applying it, apart from the stay in Ingle’s case. Related coverage: the Supreme Court’s notice on facial recognition at protests and its last chance to 23 states on caste discrimination in prisons, as well as more Daily Updates.

Source: Based on reporting by LiveLaw, Indian Opinion and, for the August hearing, LiveLaw.

Image: LiveLaw.