Measures To Curb Population Growth Far From Satisfactory; Policies Needed On War Footing: Orissa High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash has dismissed an intra-court appeal and sustained the disqualification of a Gram Panchayat Member for having more than two children, a disqualifying condition under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (the 1964 Act). The dispute arose from the member’s challenge to a Single Bench order that had affirmed the statutory bar and the resulting loss of membership. While declining interference with that order, the Division Bench also recorded an observation on population concerns, referring to a remark attributed to Sir Winston Churchill that “India is not a nation, but mere population,” and noting the contrast with present-day demographics.
In the appeal, the Member contended that he was entitled to protection under the proviso to Section 25(1)(v), asserting that his third child was born on 11.03.1993 and the fourth on 06.11.1994, and alleging that this aspect had not been duly considered. The State opposed the appeal through the Additional Government Advocate, and the private parties also resisted the appeal, supporting the impugned order.
The Court recorded: “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the view of learned Single Judge and also for the following reasons:”
On the applicability of the proviso, the Court noted: “Learned counsel for the Appellant strenuously argues that although his client begot the 3rd child on 11.03.1993 and 4th on 06.11.1994, he enjoys protection under the Proviso to Clause (v) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the 1964 Act. Let us examine this aspect of the matter.”
Addressing the proviso relied upon by the appellant, the Court recorded the statutory text: “Provided that the disqualification under Clause (v) shall not apply to any person who has more than two Children on the date of commencement of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1994 or, as the case may be, within a period of one year of such commencement, unless he begets an additional child after the said period of one year...”
On the constitutional and legislative context, the Court observed: “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 & 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.”
While discussing the policy underlying the provision, the Court stated: “Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) is said to have said "India is not a nation, but mere population". This was long before the Partition, when the then population of undivided India was about 30 Crores or so. What caustic comment he would have made, had he been alive today, will drive one to wild imagination.”
On the broader consequences of overpopulation, the Court recorded: “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 concluded this discussion by stating: “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.”
The Court directed: “In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy. We place on record our deep appreciation for the able research and assistance rendered by Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant-Mr. Mohammed Nihad Sharief. Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Hon’ble Chairman, Law Commission of India, New Delhi.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: M/s. Pratik Nayak, B. Mishra, A. Mishra & P. Patnaik, Advocates
For the Respondents: M/s. Millon Kumar, A. Khandelwal & P. Khandewlwal, Advocates [R-1]; Smt. Suman Pattanayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate [R-2 to 4]
Case Title: Maheswar Jena v Madhusudan Dalai & Others
Case Number: W.A No.1962 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad; Justice Chittaranjan Dash
