Isabella Mariam

The Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar, delivered a judgment on April 24, 2025, rejecting a constitutional challenge to a rule that disqualifies individuals with more than two living children from contesting municipal elections. The court stated that the provision under challenge had statutory backing and did not violate the Constitution.

The petitioner, a resident of Sahibganj and social worker, had filed a writ petition contesting Rule 3.14 of the Jharkhand Nagarpalika Nirvachit Pratinidhi Niyamavali, 2020. The petitioner sought to declare the rule unconstitutional on the grounds that it disqualified individuals with more than two children from contesting elections, claiming it had retrospective effect and was ultra vires of the parent Act.

Also Read: "Refusing to Condon Delay Can Result in Injustice": Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Appeals for Fresh Consideration Without Interest for Delay Period

The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Dey, aged 52, a resident of Rajmahal in Sahibganj district, intended to contest the upcoming municipal elections in Jharkhand. He challenged Rule 3.14 of the Jharkhand Nagarpalika Nirvachit Pratinidhi Niyamavali, 2020, notified by the State Government on August 27, 2020. The Rule disqualifies an elected representative from continuing in office or contesting elections if the person has more than two living children.

The petitioner asserted that this disqualification had been inserted by the State Government under Section 18 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, but alleged that such a disqualification was absent from the Act itself. He further claimed that all his three children were born before 2020, and that the rule's application would amount to retrospective disqualification.

The petitioner argued that:

1. Rule 3.14 introduces a retrospective disqualification without legislative authority.

2. The Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 does not include any disqualification based on the number of children.

3. Rule 3.14 violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. The disqualification affects his fundamental right to contest elections and participate in the democratic process.

According to the petitioner, the retrospective nature of the rule infringed upon his rights, as it penalized individuals for actions undertaken before the issuance of the notification. He further argued that only the legislature has the authority to impose retrospective disqualifications, not the rule-making authority.

On behalf of the State, it was submitted that:

• The power to make rules under Section 590 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 allowed the government to notify rules to give effect to the Act.

• Section 18(1)(n) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 already included a similar disqualification clause.

• Rule 3.14 was consistent with the statute and not an independent or unauthorized insertion.

The State further supported its case by referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Javed & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors (2003) 8 SCC 369, where an identical disqualification under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 had been upheld. The apex court had previously stated that such disqualifications were constitutional and based on legitimate policy objectives, including population control and promoting family welfare.

The court recorded that:

"Admittedly, under Section 590 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, the State Government is empowered to make Rules for carrying out of the purposes of the Act by way of Notification."

The Division Bench further noted that: "Clause (n) of Section 18(1) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 also disqualifies a person for election or after election for holding the office as Councilor if he has more than two living children. It is identical to Rule 3.14 enacted under the impugned notification."

Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that the statutory Act itself did not contain such a disqualification was deemed incorrect.

On the issue of retrospective application, the court referenced the judgment in Javed & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors, quoting: "A person having more than two children up to the expiry of one year of the commencement of the Act is not disqualified. This postponement for one year takes care of any conception on or around the commencement of the Act, the normal period of gestation being nine months."

The court noted the legislative intent behind the rule, observing:

"The Supreme Court held that persons having more than two living children are clearly distinguishable from persons having not more than two living children, that the two constitute two different classes, and the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia clearly distinguishing one from the other."

It further stated: "One of the objects sought to be achieved by the legislation is popularizing the family welfare/family planning program, and the disqualification enacted by the provision seeks to achieve the object by creating a disincentive."

Also Read: "‘Compassion Must Prevail Over Procedure’: Madras High Court Orders Temporary Leave for Undertrial to Attend Mother's Funeral, Affirms Right to Dignity and Religious Practice"

According to the Bench, the number of children allowed under the rule is a matter of policy decision, which is not open to judicial scrutiny.

The Division Bench concluded: "In view of the above settled legal position, we see no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

The court also disposed of all pending applications related to the writ petition.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Dey v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:12105-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1173 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Justice Rajesh Shankar

[Read/Download order]