Imminent Population Explosion Demands War-Footing Response: Orissa High Court Upholds Disqualification Of Panchayat Member For Violating Two-Child Norm

A Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held, “The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced Entry-20A 'Population Control & Family Planning' to the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule with effect from 03.01.1977. This introduction is not without significance. It was made in the wake of rapidly growing population in the country so that Center [sic] & States can devise policies to control the growth rate. The Proviso to Clause (v) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act is one small measure in that direction…Thus, the said Proviso was already in force since the preceding 18 years or so. Thus, the case of Appellant is one of Text Book for attracting the disqualification clause, the protective Proviso remaining miles away.”

Advocate Pratik Nayak appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Millon Kumar appeared for the Respondents.

The appellant contended that he was entitled to protection under the Proviso to Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. However, the Court found that although the appellant’s third child was born on March 11, 1993 and fourth child on November 06, 1994, the protective proviso remained miles away, as the amendment introducing the disqualification came into force on April 18, 1994, long before the Panchayat elections held in 2022.

Rejecting the appeal, the Bench observed that the case was a “text book” instance for attracting the disqualification clause, and that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge were unassailable.

The Court also elaborately referred to the laudable policy of family planning and its dire need, noting that population control falls under Entry 20A of the Concurrent List, introduced by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.

Expressing deep concern over imminent population explosion, the Bench stated, “There is almost a global unanimity of opinion that overpopulation causes environmental degradation, resource scarcity and intensified societal challenges. It is not in the domain of Court to enlist all other disastrous consequences of rapid population growth in general and the demographic changes associated with such growth, in particular. People are degrading ecosystems so thoroughly that future generations likely will have a hard time living decent lives.”

The Court added, “We have made the above observations to express our deep concern as to the imminent population explosion, and to stress the dire need for devising appropriate policies on war footing to halt the same. It is appreciable that the Parliament decades ago sensed the danger and brought about the Forty-Second Amendment to the Constitution introducing Entry 20A to the Concurrent List as already mentioned above. This was to enable the promulgation of policy, legislative or otherwise. However, we are constrained to observe that the measures hitherto taken to retard population growth rate, are far from satisfactory. It is high time that the Constitutional Institutions and the Civil Society do something in the matter.”

Holding that the appeal was devoid of merits, the Court dismissed it.

Cause Title: Maheswar Jena v. Madhusudan Dalai & Ors.

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Pratik Nayak, B. Mishra, A. Mishra & P. Patnaik

Respondents: Advocates Millon Kumar, A. Khandelwal, P. Khandewlwal, Suman Pattanayak