Rolling effect of decelerating population growth very hard to reverse: Supreme Court

A view of the Supreme Court in New Delhi. File

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 4, 2026) held that laws penalising having more than two children have lost their relevance due to the falling fertility rate in India.

“We are of the strong opinion that laws that penalise having more than two children have lost their relevance. The foundation of such laws, that is, the fear of overpopulation, has crumbled due to demographic changes in the past few decades,” a Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha observed in a 37-page judgment.

The court said its 2003 judgment (in Javed versus State of Haryana) which upheld such penal laws, needed a revisit by a larger Bench. India’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) had fallen from 3.02 to 1.9. A TFR of 2.1, known as the replacement rate, would allow one generation to completely replace itself.

“Even though India’s population is not yet declining, the TFR falling below the replacement rate will soon result in a demographic transition towards an older population with a declining share of the working-age population. Therefore, laws aimed at limiting population growth have now lost their significance,” Justice Narasimha observed.

The 2003 judgment in the Javed case had referred to the situation that existed in China as of 2000 and drew inspiration from the measures that it had undertaken to control the population.

Justice Narasimha said the decades-old view that population explosion was an impediment for progress was outdated.

“The earlier perception that population harms development does not hold water anymore. Rather than society and the courts being concerned about the negative consequences of high population, it should instead focus on the need to encourage a healthy growth of population,” the judgment, by a Bench comprising Justice Alok Aradhe, said.

The judgment pointed out that the share of persons aged 60 and above had already risen from about 8.3% in 2014 to 9.7% in 2024, and government projections place that share at nearly 15% by 2036.

India’s falling fertility rate, the court said, would necessarily mean a smaller proportion of younger persons in the future, and, correspondingly, a larger ageing population. It said the issue had been of significant concern in recent years.

The court said the failure to take notice of demographic changes would lead to only serious consequences for India. Refusing to adapt to change was important for achieving justice, Failure to adapt not only produced injustice, but was also an abuse of power.

The judgment was based on a petition filed by Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, whose election as Sarpanch of the Kakoda gram panchayat in Maharashtra was set aside on the ground that she had more than two children. The lower courts and State authorities found that she had given birth to a third child in 2014, but still contested and won the panchayat elections in 2022. They had held that she acted in violation of Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which upheld the two-child norm.

Justice Narasimha found such laws linking motherhood to political representation a violation of Article 21 (right to life) under the Constitution.

“Allowing such laws to stand excludes an entire class of citizens from political representation on grounds bearing little rational connection to their capacity to hold public office. It compels an unconscionable choice between bearing children and democratic participation, impinging on the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21,” Justice Narasimha observed.

Seeking an immediate re-visitation of the Javed judgment of 2003, the court permitted the appellant to continue in her elected position as Sarpanch of the Kakoda gram panchayat while staying any proceedings against her.

India / court / judiciary (system of justice)