Now, Rajasthan Assembly passes Bill to repeal two-child norm for ULB elections
The Rajasthan Legislative Assembly passed the Rajasthan Municipal (Amendment) Bill, 2026 to repeal the two-child eligibility condition for contesting Urban Local Body (ULB) elections
This followed the earlier passage of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Bill, 2026 scrapping the same norm for Panchayati Raj elections
The two-child norm, originally introduced in 1994-1995 during the Bhairon Singh Shekhawat government, disqualified persons with more than two children from contesting local body elections
Rajasthan Law Minister Jogaram Patel announced the Cabinet's approval, citing changed national population dynamics and demographic goals
The repeal aligns Rajasthan with the national shift away from coercive population control — India dropped its population stabilisation targets in official policy
Two-Child Norm in Local Body Elections: Legal History and Supreme Court Position
The two-child norm as a disqualification for local body election candidates has been a contested constitutional question, with the Supreme Court upholding it as a valid reasonable restriction on political participation.
Key Details
- Origin: Several states introduced the two-child norm as a population control measure for PRI/ULB candidates in the 1990s — Rajasthan (1994), Haryana (1994), Andhra Pradesh (1994), Madhya Pradesh (2000), Odisha (1994)
- Landmark SC verdict — Javed v. State of Haryana (2003): The Supreme Court upheld Haryana's two-child norm as constitutional. It held that:
- The norm is not violative of Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom), or 21 (Right to Life)
- It is a reasonable restriction imposed in public interest (population control)
- The disqualification is prospective and voluntary — persons with existing children at the time of commencement are protected by savings clauses
- Reproductive rights under Article 21 do not extend to a positive right to contest elections regardless of family size
- Despite the SC's validation, several states later repealed the norm voluntarily — recognising it had perverse effects (discrimination against women, encouragement of female foeticide to comply, penalisation of the poor who had less access to family planning services)
Rajasthan's repeal reverses what is now widely seen as a socially counterproductive policy — even as it remains constitutionally valid per Javed v. Haryana. It reflects a legislative policy evolution rather than a judicial mandate.
Panchayati Raj and Urban Local Bodies: Constitutional Framework
The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992) created constitutional mandates for rural and urban local self-government. Qualifications for membership of these bodies fall within the legislative competence of state legislatures.
Key Details
- 73rd Amendment (Part IX, Articles 243-243O): Established the three-tier Panchayati Raj system (Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parishad); mandates reservation of 1/3 seats for women; requires 5-year terms and regular elections through State Election Commissions
- 74th Amendment (Part IXA, Articles 243P-243ZG): Established constitutional status for Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) — Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations; similar reservation and election provisions
- Article 243F (Disqualifications): A person is disqualified from being chosen as a member of Panchayat if they are so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State — giving state legislatures broad power to impose disqualifications, including the two-child norm
- Article 243V: Analogous provision for ULBs — disqualifications may be imposed by state law
- State Election Commission (Article 243K/243ZA): Superintendence of elections to local bodies vested in State Election Commissions, not the Election Commission of India
The Rajasthan Municipal (Amendment) Bill operates squarely within Article 243V — the state legislature is within its constitutional authority to add or remove disqualifications for ULB membership. The repeal is a legitimate exercise of state legislative power.
Population Policy and Reproductive Rights
India's official population policy has shifted significantly from earlier coercive approaches to a rights-based, voluntary framework. The two-child norm repeal reflects this evolution.
Key Details
- National Population Policy (NPP) 2000: Targeted Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 2.1 by 2010; explicitly disavowed coercive methods; promoted small family norm through incentives and education
- Current TFR: India achieved replacement-level fertility (TFR ~2.0) nationally per NFHS-5 (2019-21); many southern states are already below replacement level (TFR ~1.6-1.8)
- Coercive norm perverse effects documented: Women who had children from previous marriages or suffered child loss were penalised; sex-selective abortions incentivised to comply with the norm; poor and marginalised communities disproportionately affected
- India's 2036 Population Projection (MoHFW): Total population expected to stabilise — population growth is no longer a primary policy concern for most states
- ICPD Programme of Action (1994): India is a signatory; commits to reproductive rights as human rights, voluntary family planning, and elimination of coercive measures
Rajasthan's repeal of a 30-year-old norm acknowledges the evidence that coercive population measures in electoral law do not achieve demographic goals but do impose discriminatory costs — particularly on women, the poor, and the politically marginalised.
- Rajasthan Municipal (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — both passed March 2026
- Two-child norm introduced in Rajasthan: 1994-1995 (Bhairon Singh Shekhawat government)
- Javed v. State of Haryana (2003): SC upheld two-child norm as constitutionally valid
- 73rd Amendment (1992): Constitutional basis for Panchayati Raj; Article 243F — disqualification provisions
- 74th Amendment (1992): Constitutional basis for ULBs; Article 243V — disqualification provisions
- India's TFR: ~2.0 nationally (NFHS-5, 2019-21) — already at replacement level
- NPP 2000: Targeted TFR 2.1 by 2010; disavowed coercive measures
- Article 243K: State Election Commission for Panchayat elections; Article 243ZA: SEC for ULB elections