Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has reiterated the constitutional and social importance of family planning and population control while dismissing an appeal filed by a former gram panchayat member who challenged his disqualification 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. The provision disqualifies individuals with more than two children from holding office in panchayati raj institutions.
The appeal arose from a December 5, 2025 order of a single judge, which had dismissed the appellant’s writ petitions challenging his disqualification. The appellant contended that he was entitled to protection under the proviso to the disqualification clause, claiming that his third and fourth children were born in 1993 and 1994, prior to the enforcement of the two-child norm.
However, the Division Bench rejected the argument, noting that the statutory amendment introducing the two-child norm came into effect on April 18, 1994. The court observed that the appellant had exceeded the permissible limit after the amendment became operative.
Clarifying the scope of the protective proviso, the Bench held that it applied only to individuals 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 subsequently. Since the appellant did not meet these conditions, the court concluded that he clearly attracted the disqualification under the Act.
In a strongly worded section titled “A Fragment on the Laudable Policy of Family Planning & Its Dire Need,” Justice Dixit underscored the urgent necessity of population control, linking it to constitutional values and sustainable development.
Recalling Winston Churchill’s colonial-era remark that “India is not a nation but mere population,” Justice Dixit observed that the country’s present demographic realities would have likely drawn even harsher criticism, highlighting the gravity of unchecked population growth.
The judgment drew extensively from earlier court rulings, international reports, and the works of thinkers such as Thomas Malthus and Bertrand Russell, pointing to the adverse consequences of overpopulation, including environmental degradation, strain on natural resources, and impediments to socio-economic progress.
Justice Dixit also referred to the Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment, which placed “Population Control and Family Planning” in the Concurrent List, describing it as a conscious policy decision aimed at curbing demographic imbalance.
Citing data from UNFPA and the World Health Organization, the court noted India’s rapidly expanding population and observed that Odisha remains among the priority states requiring focused demographic interventions.
The Bench emphasized that elected representatives, particularly at the grassroots level, are expected to lead by example in adhering to family planning norms. “If they themselves violate the norm, what example can they set before the public?” the court remarked, echoing earlier judicial pronouncements.
