Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.CHELAMESWAR, MOTILAL B.NAIK
B.K.Parthasarathi - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-14-99
Held : The substance of the provision is that it does not compel directly anyone to stop procreation, but only disqualifies any person who is otherwise eligible to seek election to various public offices coming within the ambit of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or declares such persons who have already been holding such offices to be disqualified from continuing in such offices if they procreate more than two children
Whether creation of a restriction such as the one created in this case, would in fact achieve the object sought to be achieved, cannot be demonstrated in proceedings like this, but however, the legislative measure is reasonably be connected with the object sought to be achieved In our considered view, the inquiry must stops there and this Court would not be justified in making a further inquiry as to what extent such a purpose would be achieved The fact remains that the population growth is one of the major problems facing this country and any measure to control the population growth unless it impermissibly violates some constitutionally protected right must be upheld as a legally permissible exercise of legislative power
What is sought to be curtailed by the Legislature in this case is not the right to procreation but the right to seek certain elected offices created under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 if one begets more children than the prescribed limit The petitioners right to privacy is not infringed, by the impugned provision
( 1 ) AN important question of law as to the constitutional validity of Section 19 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is raised in this writ petitions.
( 2 ) IN all these three writ petitions, the individual petitioner is either an elected Chairman or some other office bearer of one of the local bodies created under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, few facts relating to each of these three writ petitions are traced as under :in Writ Petition No. 19068 of 1997, the petitioner is the Chairman of Anantapur Zilla Parishad. He was initially elected as ZPTC member from Roddam Territorial Constituency of Anantapur District and subsequently he was elected as Chairman of Zilla Parishad, Anantapur on 20-3-1995. By the time he choose to contest the elections for the office of ZPTC member, he had four children. However, after being elected as Chairman, Zilla Parishad, Anantapur, a female child was born to him on 28-4-1997 in Gautami Nursing Home, Anantapur. It is alleged that a birth of an additional child during holding of the office under the said Act beyond permissible limits as provided under Section 19 (3) of the Act disqualifies a person to hold such office. The petitioner was, therefore, issued proceedings in RC No. 2502/97/cl. dated 3-8-1997 by the third respondent intimating about the disqualification of the petitioner.
( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 23521 of 1998, the petitioner was elected as a member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency, Epurupalem village and lateron, he was elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Chirala on 18-3-1995. At the time of contesting the elections, the petitioner had five children and he underwent vasectomy operation on 5-1-1995. However, as the vasectomy operation failed, while holding the post of President, MPP, Chirala, another child was born to him which attracted disqualification of the petitioner in terms of Section 19 (3) of the Act. The second respondent, therefore, issued proceedings in RC No. 10256/96 dated 24-2-1997 intimating that the petitioner is disqualified to continue as President, MPP, Chirala as well as MPTC member. Petitioner, however, moved the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Tribunal constituted under the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, Chirala questioning the validity of the said proceedings in O. P. No. 2 of 1996. The said Tribunal dismissed the said O. P. No. 2 of 1996 on 1-8-1998.
( 5 ) IN Writ Petition No. 29460 of 1998, the petitioner was elected as a member of Gambheerraopet Gram Panchayat from Ward No. 1. By that time, he had four children. While the petitioner was holding the said post, a fifth child was born to him on 2-8-1997. The fourth respondent, therefore, issued proceedings in A/57/98 dated 4-8-1998 disqualifying the petitioner from holding the said post in terms of Section 19 (3) of the Act.
( 6 ) THE Legislature of Andhra Pradesh made "andhra PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994" in pursuance of the provisions of Part-IX of the Constitution of India, which provisions authorised the respective State Legislatures to make bye-law provisions with respect to the composition of the "panchayats" and matters connected therewith. The expression panchayat is defined under Article 243 (a) of the Constitution. The Legislature of Andhra Pradesh while making such law, prescribed various disqualifications in regard to holding of various offices created under the above-mentioned enactment. The relevant section for the purpose of deciding the issue before us is sub-Section (3) of Section 19, which reads as under :"a person having more than two children shall be disqualified for election or for continuing as member. Provided that the birth within one year from the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 hereinafter in this Section referred to as the date of such commencement of an additional child shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
