Two-child disqualification for local office upheld as a valid welfare measure; adoption does not erase the bar.

A statutory disqualification for holding or contesting local public office on the ground of having more than two living children was upheld as a valid welfare measure linked to population control, public health and social justice. The Court held that a State law must be tested on its own footing, that phased implementation of reform is permissible, and that the measure was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory under Article 14. It further held that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right protected by Article 21, and that the law regulated a secular eligibility criterion without offending Article 25. A child given in adoption continued to count once the disqualification was attracted by the birth of a third living child.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disqualification for having more than two living children under the Haryana Panchayati Raj law was arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the disqualification infringed the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (iii) Whether the disqualification violated freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India; (iv) Whether a child given in adoption ceases to count for the purpose of the disqualification.

Issue (i): Whether the disqualification for having more than two living children under the Haryana Panchayati Raj law was arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The disqualification was upheld as a policy measure aimed at population control, public health, and social welfare. A State law was tested on its own footing, and could not be struck down merely by comparing it with similar laws of other States. The Court accepted that phased implementation of reform is permissible and that the measure served a legitimate public purpose linked to the constitutional scheme of local self-government and welfare-oriented governance.

Conclusion: The provision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and did not violate Article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the disqualification infringed the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to contest an election is a statutory or constitutional creation, not a fundamental right. The Court held that the law did not interfere with any fundamental liberty in a manner protected by Article 21, and that individual liberty must be read in harmony with social justice, public health, and the constitutional obligation to control population growth.

Conclusion: The disqualification did not violate Article 21.

Issue (iii): Whether the disqualification violated freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the impugned law regulated a secular field connected with eligibility for public office and did not compel or prohibit any essential religious practice. Permissive religious conduct was distinguished from a mandatory religious injunction. The law was treated as a measure of social welfare and reform, and therefore compatible with the constitutional limitations in Article 25.

Conclusion: The disqualification did not violate Article 25.

Issue (iv): Whether a child given in adoption ceases to count for the purpose of the disqualification.

Analysis: The Court held that the disqualification is attracted once a third living child is born, and subsequent adoption of one child does not erase the fact that the person is responsible for more than two living children. The object of the provision would be defeated if adoption were treated as eliminating the disqualification.

Conclusion: A child given in adoption continues to count for the purpose of the disqualification.

Final Conclusion: The impugned disqualification was upheld in full as a constitutionally valid measure promoting population control, public health, and social welfare, and the connected challenges failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory disqualification for holding or contesting a public office is valid where it serves a legitimate welfare objective, does not infringe any fundamental right, and regulates only secular eligibility criteria rather than any essential religious practice.

---