Supreme Court Questions Relevance of Two-Child Norm for Local Elections, Refers 2003 Judgment to Larger Bench

Supreme Court Refers Two-Child Norm to Larger Bench

The Supreme Court on November 4, 2026 referred the reasoning behind the two-child disqualification for local-body elections to a larger bench. The order came in Mangala Bhimrao Ingle v. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and Others. A bench of Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe examined whether the 2003 judgment in Javed v. State of Haryana still holds relevance. In Javed, the Court had upheld a Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 provision barring candidates with more than two living children from contesting certain local elections. The current case arose from Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which contains a similar disqualification.

Why the Reference Matters

The bench noted that India's total fertility rate has fallen from roughly 3 in 2003 to 1.9, below the replacement level of 2.1. It observed that the population-control rationale underlying such restrictions may no longer carry the same weight. The Court also flagged concerns about democratic participation and reproductive autonomy under Article 21. Importantly, the referral does not automatically abolish two-child restrictions across India. Several States adopted similar norms over time, while others repealed them or never introduced such provisions. The petitioner, Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, was elected Sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat in Maharashtra in 2022 and later disqualified for having more than two children after the applicable cut-off date. The Bombay High Court upheld that disqualification in August 2025, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Implications and What to Watch

For entities working with panchayats, municipal bodies and state election authorities, the reference signals that eligibility rules based on family size may face fresh constitutional scrutiny. Compliance teams tracking candidate disqualification provisions should note that the legal position remains unchanged until a…