JAVED AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 30-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

JAVED AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
JULY 30, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Panchayats and Zila Parishads: 
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994-Sections 175(/)(q) and 177(1)-
Provisions disqualifying person having more than two children from contesting C 
for, or holding elective office in Panchayats-Constitutional validity of-Held: 
Provisions intra vires the Constitution being salutary and in public interest-
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 21 and 25. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
D 
Article 14-Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994-Sections 175(/)(q) and 
177(1)-Provisions disqualifying person having more than two children from 
contesting for, or holding elective office in Panchayats-Whether arbitrary, 
unreasonable and discriminatory-Held: Persons having more than two living 
children and persons having not more than two living children constitute two E 
different classes distinguishing one from another based on intelligible differentia 
having rational relation to the object of implementation of family planning 
programme-Uniform policy of controlling population having far reaching 
implication are capable of being implemented in phased manner either at 
grass root level or at the top-Panchayats are grass root level of local self-
governance having wider base-Hence, the provisions neither arbitrary nor 
unreasonable nor discriminatory-Constitution of lndia, 1950-Article 2430-
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994-Section 21. 
Article 21-Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994-Sections 175(/)(q) and 
177(1)-Provisions disqualifying person having more than two children from 
contesting for, or holding elective office in Panchayats-Whether violative of 
Article 21-Held: No, it is a measure to keep population explosion within 
reasonable bounds-Also to be read along with directive principles and 
fundamental duties which dictate check on population explosion-Hence, the 
provisions not violative of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 
947 
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 21-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 243C, 243F, 243G, 38, 46, 47 and 
51-A. 
Article 25-Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994-Sections 175(/)(q) and 
177(/)-Provisions disqualifYing person having more than two children from 
contesting for, or holding elective office in Panchayats-Whether violative of 
B Article 25-Held: No, the constitutional guarantee under Article 25 is subject 
to public order, morality and health-It, thus, permits legislation in the interest 
of social welfare and reform-The provisions being in that direction, not 
violative of Article 25. 
C 
The provisions of Section 175(1)(q) and Section 177(1) of Haryana 
Panc!Jayati Raj Act, 1994 disqualify from person having more than two 
children after one year on the date of commencement of Act from holding 
or contesting for specified offices of Panchayat. Writ petitioners and the 
appellants were disqualified from contesting for, or holding office of 
Panchas/Sarpanchas in view of their having incurred the disqualification 
D as provided by Section 175(1 )( q) and Section 177(1) of the Act. Writ 
petitioners and appellants have challenged the constitutional validity of 
Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) on the ground that it is arbitrary, hence 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; that the disqualification does 
not serve the purpose sought to be achieved by the legislation; that the 
E provision is discriminatory; that the provision adversely affects the liberty 
of leading personal life in all its freedom and having as many children as 
one chooses to have, hence violative of Article 21 of the Constitution; and 
that the provision interferes with freedom of religion, hence violates Article 
25 of the Constitution. 
p 
Appellants and writ petitioners contended that the number of 
children which one has, whether two or three or more, does not affect the 
capacity, competence and quality of a person to serve on any office of a 
Panchayat and, therefore, the ~pugned disqualification has no nexus with 
the object sought to be achieved by the Act; that the provision of 
disqualification introduced by the State of Haryana is discriminatory since 
G similar provision has not been enacted for disqualifying aspirants or 
holders of elective or public offices in other institutions of local self-
governance, State Legislatures and Parliament and also in States other 
than Haryana; that the fundamental right to life and personal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.