The Orissa High Court has upheld the disqualification of a gram panchayat member under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, for having more than two children, reaffirming the constitutional and policy importance of family planning and population control.
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash has dismissed an appeal challenging the disqualification of a gram panchayat member on the ground of having more than two children, as barred under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.
The appellant had approached the High Court challenging the order of a single judge dated December 5, 2025, which had dismissed his writ petitions. He argued that he was protected under the proviso to Section 25(1)(v) as his third and fourth children were born in 1993 and 1994, respectively.
However, the court noted that the two-child norm was introduced via an amendment that came into effect on April 18, 1994. Since the appellant had more than two children after this cut-off date, the court held that he did not qualify for the protection under the proviso.
Justice Dixit, authoring the judgment, clarified the scope of the proviso to Section 25(1)(v). He explained that the exception applies only to those who had more than two children at the time the amendment came into effect or within one year thereafter, provided they did not have any further children subsequently.
Finding that the appellant’s case clearly violated this clause, the Bench concluded that the disqualification was valid and justified.
In a significant portion titled “A Fragment on the Laudable Policy of Family Planning & Its Dire Need,” Justice Dixit elaborated on the pressing need for population control. Referring to the historical comment by Winston Churchill that “India is not a nation but mere population,” he remarked that Churchill’s criticism would be even more scathing today given the current demographic situation.
The court cited thinkers such as Malthus and Bertrand Russell, as well as data from UNFPA and WHO, to underline the impact of overpopulation on environmental sustainability, natural resources, and socio-economic development.
Justice Dixit referred to the Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment, which placed “Population Control and Family Planning” in the Concurrent List, as a testament to the State’s policy objective to curb unchecked population growth. Odisha, the judgment noted, is one of the priority states identified for targeted interventions to address demographic challenges.
The judgment also stressed the role of elected representatives in modelling responsible behavior:
“If they themselves violate the norm, what example can they set before the public?”
The court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the constitutionality and relevance of the two-child norm for public representatives in panchayati raj institutions. It also strongly reiterated the policy importance of family planning for India’s sustainable development.
