SC Upholds Haryana Law: Two-Child Norm Valid, Dismisses Petitions Challenging Constitutionality; Adoption Defense Not Allowed.

The SC ruled that Section 175(1)(q) and Section 177(1) of Haryana Act No.11 of 1994 are constitutionally valid, dismissing all petitions challenging their validity. The provisions, concerning disqualification for having more than two living children, are intra vires the Constitution, aligned with public interest, and do not violate Articles 14, 21, or 25. The proceedings under Section 177(2) shall continue, and the defence regarding adoption-related disqualification is inadmissible. All related writ petitions and civil appeals are dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned provision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory under Article 14.
2. Whether the impugned provision violates Articles 21 and 25.
3. Whether the disqualification under Section 175(1)(q) of Haryana Act No.11 of 1994 is constitutionally valid.

Summary:

Issue 1: Arbitrary, Unreasonable, or Discriminatory under Article 14

The court held that it is not permissible to compare a piece of legislation enacted by a State with another law enacted by Parliament or another State legislature, even if they are pari materia. The sources of power are different, and Article 14 does not authorize striking down a law of one State on the ground that its provisions are discriminatory in contrast with a law of another State. The court cited several precedents, including The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. G.C. Mandawar and The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Vs. The State of U.P., to support this view. The court concluded that the impugned provision is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable nor discriminatory and is consistent with the national population policy, thus not violative of Article 14.

Issue 2: Violation of Articles 21 and 25

The court reiterated that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but a statutory right. The court cited several cases, including N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer and Jyoti Basu Vs. Debi Ghosal, to emphasize that the right to contest an election is subject to statutory limitations. The court held that the disqualification for having more than two living children does not contravene any fundamental right nor cross the limits of reasonability, and is conceptually devised in national interest.

Regarding Article 21, the court observed that the law laid down in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir is being misread. The court emphasized the importance of population control for socioeconomic progress and cited various statistics and reports to highlight the issue of population explosion. The court concluded that the impugned legislation does not violate the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

Regarding Article 25, the court noted that the freedom of religion is subject to public order, morality, and health. The court held that the impugned provision does not violate Article 25 as it is a measure of social welfare and reform. The court cited several cases, including Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Vs. Union of India and Sarla Mudgal Vs. Union of India, to support this view. The court concluded that the statutory provision casting disqualification on contesting for, or holding, an elective office is not violative of Article 25.

Issue 3: Constitutional Validity of Section 175(1)(q) of Haryana Act No.11 of 1994

The court held that the right to contest an election for any office in Panchayat is neither fundamental nor a common law right but a creature of statute, subject to qualifications and disqualifications enacted by legislation. The court emphasized that no religion in India mandates bigamy or polygamy or having more than one child as an obligation. The court concluded that the impugned legislation is in the interest of public order, morality, and health, and is constitutionally valid.

Conclusion:

The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 175(1)(q) and Section 177(1) fails on all counts. Both provisions are held intra vires the Constitution, salutary, and in public interest. All petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions are dismissed. The proceedings under Section 177(2) of the Act before the Director or in appeals shall now be concluded. The defence of disqualification not being attracted due to a child being given in adoption is not available. All writ petitions and civil appeals arising out of SLPs are dismissed.

---