Orissa HC upholds two-child norm for panchayat member

The Orissa High Court has reaffirmed the importance of family planning and population control while dismissing an appeal challenging the disqualification of a gram panchayat member for having more than two children.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash, in a recent judgment authored by Justice Dixit, upheld the termination of the appellant’s membership under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, which bars persons with more than two children from holding office in panchayati raj institutions.

The appellant had challenged a December 5, 2025, order of a single judge dismissing his writ petitions. He argued that he was entitled to protection under the proviso to the relevant provision, as his third and fourth children were born in 1993 and 1994.

However, the court rejected the plea, noting that the amendment introducing the two-child norm took effect on April 18, 1994, and that the appellant had subsequently exceeded the prescribed limit. Explaining the scope of the protective proviso, the division bench observed that it applied only to persons who already had more than two children at the time of commencement of the amendment or within one year thereafter, provided no additional child was born later.

Since the appellant’s case clearly fell outside this framework, the court held that he squarely attracted the disqualification clause.

In a strongly worded section titled “A Fragment on the Laudable Policy of Family Planning and its Dire Need,” Justice Dixit underlined the constitutional and social importance of population control.

Recalling Winston Churchill’s remark that “India is not a nation but mere population”, made during colonial rule when its population was far smaller before partition, Justice Dixit observed that today’s demographic realities would have invited even sharper criticism from Churchill, highlighting the urgency of effective population regulation.

Quoting earlier judgments, international reports, and thinkers such as Malthus and Bertrand Russell, Justice Dixit highlighted the dangers of overpopulation, including pressure on natural resources, environmental degradation, and obstacles to socio-economic development.

Referring to the Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment, which introduced “Population Control and Family Planning” in the Concurrent List, Justice Dixit said the provision reflected a conscious policy decision to curb unchecked population growth.

It cited UNFPA and WHO data showing India’s rapidly growing population and noted that Odisha was among the priority states for addressing demographic challenges.

The Bench observed that elected representatives, especially at the grassroots level, were expected to set an example by adhering to family planning norms.

“If they themselves violate the norm, what example can they set before the public?” the Bench remarked, echoing earlier judicial pronouncements.