Does disqualifying candidates with more than two children from panchayat elections pass the test of reasonableness under Article 14? Discuss with reference to *Javed v. State of Haryana*.

Article 14 allows a classification only if it rests on an intelligible differentia that has a rational nexus with the law's object. In Javed v. State of Haryana (2003), the Supreme Court upheld Section 175(1)(q), Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which disqualifies persons with more than two living children from panchayat office [2]. In November 2026, a Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha said such laws "have lost their relevance" [1]. The rule passed the test in 2003, but it struggles to pass it today.

Why Javed found the rule reasonable

• Differentia: persons with more than two children are "clearly distinguishable" from others [2].
• Nexus: population control was a national priority. The Court drew on China's situation as of 2000 [1].
• Statutory right: contesting elections is not a fundamental right, so states may prescribe qualifications. The Court found no fundamental right violated [2].
• Role-model logic: local leaders were expected to set a small-family example.

Why it now fails the test

• Nexus has lapsed: TFR has fallen from 3.02 to 1.9, below the replacement level of 2.1. The fear of overpopulation has "crumbled" [1]. When a classification's object disappears, it becomes manifestly arbitrary.
• Ineffective means: the rule penalises only the few who contest, not families at large. It barely affects population.
• Disproportionate burden: the Ministry of Panchayati Raj itself said the norm harms women, youth, Dalits and weaker sections [3]. This undercuts women's reservation under Article 243D (Part IX).
• Coercion is discredited: UNFPA's State of World Population 2025 warns that coercive population measures are ineffective and violate reproductive rights [4]. The National Population Policy, 2000 already chose a voluntary, target-free approach.

Way forward

• The larger Bench should apply proportionality: legitimate aim, suitability, necessity and balancing. On the evidence, the rule fails the suitability and balancing limbs. Until then, Javed binds under Article 141 [1].
• State legislatures should repeal such provisions from their panchayat Acts instead of waiting for the Court.
• Policy should not swing to pronatalist pressure. The aim should be removing barriers to chosen family size, not setting new targets [4].

Overall, the two-child disqualification was reasonable only while its factual basis held. That basis has now gone, so the rule is out of line with Article 14. A rights-based, voluntary population policy, together with inclusive grassroots democracy, best serves the constitutional promise of equality and the spirit of the 73rd Amendment.