The rapid population expansion in India is one of the main obstacles to the country’s socioeconomic development. Population policy needs to be adopted from the bottom up and should rise to the top gradually. In javed v state of Haryana, the Honble Supreme Court of India rendered a significant ruling that will have a broad impact on the implementation of population control measures at the local level.
javed v state of Haryana Case Facts
The petitioner in this case contested the legality of Sections 177(1) and 175(1)(q) of the haryana panchayati raj act, 1994 (henceforth referred to as “the Act”). The following are the specific provisions that the petitioner contested:
- According to Section 175(1)(q) of the Act, a person who has two or more children living at the time of contending for office is not eligible to become or continue as a Sarpanch, a panch of a Gram Panchayat, or a member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad. There is an exemption to it under Section 177(1) of the Act. It specifies that the disqualification of individuals will take effect a year after the Act’s enactment.
- A person will not be disqualified if they have more than two children until one year has passed since the Act’s inception. A person is ineligible to hold the office even if they are not disqualified from running for office on election day but become disqualified subsequently by giving birth to a child after the Act’s implementation. In order to challenge the legality of these sections, the petitioner filed a special leave petition with the Supreme Court.
javed v state of Haryana Issues
- A number of the Act’s provisions are arbitrary, which means they violate article 14 2 of the indian constitution.
- The legislation’s goal of making the family planning program more widely known is not achieved by disqualifying someone from running for office or by ending their employment during a term.
- The provisions are biased since they treat an individual differently based on the number of children they have.
- The clause negatively impacts each person’s fundamental right to personal life and liberty, which are guaranteed by the constitution in terms of freedom and having as many as one desire.
- The clause infringes against a Muslim man’s right to freedom of religion since it allows him to marry four women, raising the possibility that he will have four offspring from each of them. This is in violation of Article 25[3] of the Indian Constitution.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners contended that the Act’s provisions were intrinsically arbitrary, thereby contravening article 14 of the indian constitution.
- The legislation’s intended objective was not fulfilled by the contested clauses. There is discrimination in the provision.
- Additionally, the petitioner argued that the clauses violated article 21 of the indian constitution.
- The petitioner further asserted that a guy is allowed to marry four women in the Muslim society. Because the contested provisions violated Muslims’ right to religious freedom, they also violated article 25 of the indian constitution.
Respondent:
- The respondents argued that article 14 of the indian constitution applied to the contested provisions.
- They argued that because there was a clear distinction between those who had fewer than two children and those who had more than two, the provisions met the requirements of Article 14’s test of reasonability. Consequently, the respondents’ classification was fair and not arbitrary, which puts it under Article 14’s jurisdiction.
- The respondents further contended that the administration drafted the contested clauses as a policy decision to ensure that family planning programs be implemented effectively. Therefore, the respondents argued that the separation of powers theory would be violated if the judiciary interfered with this policy decision.
javed v state of Haryana Judgment
- The law was deemed constitutionally valid by the Court. The court determined that the law was not arbitrary because it clearly defines the groups of people who have two children or more, and it classifies them based on discernible differences in order to support the act’s intended family planning program.
- The court noted that running for office is a statutory right rather than a fundamental one, and as such, statutes may place limitations on these kinds of rights. The court further stressed that maintaining population control was essential to realizing the goal of the nation’s sustainable growth.
- article 25 of the indian constitution is not violated, the court said. The court further noted that freedom does not safeguard all that is permissible inside a religion; rather, it simply safeguards religious practices or positive tenets.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
