https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192715 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. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192715 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192715