Orissa High Court: While deciding an intra-court appeal challenging termination of membership of a Grama Panchayat on the ground of disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (‘Act of 1964’), a Division Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., upheld the order of the Single Judge. The Court ruled that the statutory protection under the proviso to the two-child norm was inapplicable, squarely attracting the disqualification clause. Finding no ground to interfere, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Background:
The appeal arose from termination of membership of a Grama Panchayat on the ground of disqualification for having more than two children, as provided under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act of 1964. The challenge to the termination had earlier been negatived by the Single Judge, leading to the present intra-court appeal.
It was contended that the appellant was entitled to protection under the proviso to Clause (v) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act of 1964, and that failure to consider the said proviso constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The State and the private respondents resisted the appeal, supporting the impugned order and the reasons recorded therein.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that Section 25(1) of the Act enlists 23 circumstances for disqualification, including Clause (v) relating to having more than two children. It was noted that the proviso was introduced by way of amendment effective from 18-04-1994, whereas the appellant’s third child was born on 11-03-1993 and the fourth on 06-11-1994. The Court remarked that the case of the appellant is one of a Textbook for attracting the disqualification clause, the protective proviso remaining miles away.
The Court highlighted that Section 25(1)(v) of the Act of 1964 enacts a State Policy of diminishing the exponential population growth and cited Fazru v. State of Haryana, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 1274 wherein it was held that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right and that no enactment promoting social and economic justice can be held ultra vires.
The Court further noted alarming global and national population trends, referencing UNFPA and WHO data, and reiterated that overpopulation presents a mammoth challenge to the delicate balance of our only planet and its limited resources. It was stressed that measures taken so far to retard population growth were far from satisfactory and urged constitutional institutions and civil society to act on war footing.
Finally, the Court concluded that the appeal was devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed it, with costs made easy. The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Law Commission of India.
[Maheswar Jena v. Madhusudan Dalai, W.A No.1962 of 2025, decided on 15-01-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Pratik Nayak, B. Mishra, A. Mishra & P. Patnaik, Advocates
For the Respondents – Millon Kumar, A. Khandelwal & P. Khandewlwal, Advocates, Suman Pattanayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate