Supreme Court refers panchayat two-child rule to larger bench

The Supreme Court on 4 November 2026 asked for a larger bench to reconsider Javed v State of Haryana, the 2003 precedent upholding a two-child eligibility restriction for panchayat office. The appeal before Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe concerned Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, who had been elected sarpanch of Kakoda Gram Panchayat in Maharashtra. Her election was set aside because she had more than two children.

The two judges questioned the continuing justification for a restriction founded on concern about rapid population growth. They discussed a decline in India’s total fertility rate to 1.9 children per woman, below a replacement benchmark of 2.1 children per woman. They also considered the burden on reproductive decisions protected by Article 21. The order continues the interim stay of the High Court decision until the civil appeal is disposed of, allowing Ingle to remain in office meanwhile.

Facts to remember

• Reference date: 4 November 2026; the order was issued in New Delhi.
• The Maharashtra provision is Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
• The precedent referred for reconsideration is Javed v State of Haryana, decided in 2003.
• Ingle’s continuation as sarpanch rests on interim relief; the reference does not finally dispose of the appeal.

Background

In Javed, the Supreme Court reviewed a disqualification under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, for people with more than two living children. The Court upheld it against an equality challenge under Article 14, treating population control as a legitimate basis for the classification. The new reference raises whether the reasoning remains sound given changed conditions and the implications for reproductive autonomy.

Why it matters for exams

For judiciary, APO, AIBE and UGC-NET Law, revise Articles 14 and 21, electoral disqualifications and the effect of a reference to a larger bench.