New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday cautioned that the consequences of slowing population growth could be difficult to reverse, emphasising the need for policies that reflect India's changing demographic realities and guard against a potentially irreversible decline in fertility.

To advertise here,

The court observed that laws framed to address social concerns must be reassessed when the circumstances that led to their enactment change. It said legislation cannot remain insulated from evolving social and economic conditions.

"Adapting to change is important for achieving justice, as failure to adapt produces injustice and is, in a sense, an abuse of power. Thus, failure to use power to adapt to change is in its own way an abuse of power," a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said.

The observations came while the bench examined the constitutional validity and continued relevance of laws that disqualify people with more than two children from contesting or holding local body positions.

The case arose from a challenge by Mangala Bhimrao Ingle, whose election as sarpanch of Kakoda gram panchayat in Maharashtra was set aside because she had more than two children. Her disqualification was based on Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

The bench said the fear of overpopulation that had once informed such restrictions had weakened in the face of changing demographic trends. It stressed that the continued justification for a law must be examined in the context of present-day realities.

It also underlined the importance of legislative reform, saying that assessing the effectiveness, accessibility, utility and possible misuse of laws was essential to improving the legal system.

The court said the executive has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that legislation achieves the objectives for which it was enacted.

"As stated above, reviewing and assessing the implementation of a statute is an integral part of the Rule of Law. The purpose of such review is to ensure that a law is working out in practice as it was intended. If not, to understand the reason and address it quickly," it said.

A law introduced to address a particular social problem may no longer serve its original purpose if the conditions surrounding that problem undergo substantial changes, the bench observed.

"While this court cannot direct the legislature to repeal or amend a law, it can certainly examine whether the continued operation of that law remains constitutionally sustainable in light of changed circumstances," the bench said.

Referring to India's demographic transition, the court noted that the country's total fertility rate (TFR) had declined from 3.0 in 2003 to 1.9.

"The need of the hour is to have policies in tune with the present realities. We need to guard against potentially irreversible decline in fertility and respond to the changing demographic realities," the bench said.

It warned that India could soon face the challenges of an ageing population, with a disproportionately large section of people moving beyond working age.

Drawing attention to international experiences, the court said countries with declining populations were already dealing with the economic and social consequences of demographic ageing.

"The rolling effect of a decelerating population growth is very hard to reverse," it said, citing China as an example.

The bench also referred to Japan, which continues to face high public debt and increased expenditure on healthcare and long-term care as its population ages.

"Japan, for instance, after years of severe population decline, continues to face high public debt and high public expenditure on health and long-term care for its ageing population, all of which add to its fiscal and developmental challenges," the bench said.

The court invoked the doctrine of temporal reasonableness, which recognises that the constitutional validity of a law cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the circumstances prevailing when it was enacted.

"The question, therefore, is not whether the law must remain static or be permitted to change. Change is inherent in the life of the law," it said.

The bench further questioned the traditional assumption that population growth necessarily has a negative impact on economic development.

It said the rationale for connecting population control with eligibility to participate in local self-government elections required reconsideration.

The court also highlighted the gender implications of the two-child restriction, observing that its impact could not be understood merely by pointing out that men and women were equally subject to disqualification.

"This court in Javed dismissed the grave implications of such a restriction for the rights of women, stating that both men and women would stand equally disqualified. This does not sit in accordance with the social realities of the country," it said.

The bench referred to son preference as an example of how social practices influence reproductive decisions.

"Demographic studies have demonstrated that son preference influences reproductive decisions, including the desire to have additional children until the birth of a son," it noted.

While acknowledging that reproductive autonomy is not entirely beyond regulation, the court said restrictions must be continuously assessed for their reasonableness.

"The imposition of electoral disqualification upon the birth of a third child places a person in the position of choosing between the exercise of their reproductive autonomy and continued participation in democratic governance," it said.

The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench to reconsider the legal position established in its 2003 judgment in Javed versus State of Haryana. In that ruling, the court had upheld provisions under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, disqualifying people with more than two living children from contesting or holding panchayat posts.

The bench also directed that its earlier interim order allowing Ingle to continue as sarpanch would remain in force until the appeal is decided.