The court ruled that the protective Proviso to disqualification under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act does not apply to individuals who have more than two children after the amendment's enactment. The disqualification stands affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

Appellant's membership of Grama Panchayat having been terminated on the ground of disqualification because of having more than two children, as provided under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964, is in question and his challenge to the same having been negatived, this intra-court Appeal is presented against a learned Single Judge's order dated 05.12.2025, whereby his WP(C) Nos.31617 & 32188 of 2024 have been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argues that his client is entitled to protection under the Proviso to Clause (v) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the 1964 Act and this aspect having not been duly considered, there is error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court. Learned AGA appearing for the State and learned Advocates appearing for the private parties on caveat vociferously resist the appeal making submissions in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which they have been constructed.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the view of learned Single Judge and also for the following reasons:

3.1. AS TO THE SCOPE OF PROTECTIVE PROVISO TO SECTION 25(1)(V) OF THE ACT:

3.1.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant strenuously argues that although his client begot the 3^rd child on 11.03.1993 and 4^th on 06.11.1994, he enjoys protection under the Proviso to Clause (v) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the 1964 Act. Let us examine this aspect of the matter. Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 enlists as many as 23 circumstances, each one of them being a ground for disqualification from being elected or nominated as a Sarpanch or any other member of Grama Panchayat. Relevant to our discussion is Clause (v) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 25, of course, the Proviso to the Clause being inclusive. The same has following text:

“25. Disqualification for membership of Grama Panchayat-(1) A person shall be disqualified for being elected or nominated as, a Sarpanch or any other member of the Grama Panchayat constituted under this Act, if he-

xx

xx

xx

(v) has more than two children: xx

xx

xx

“Provided that the disqualification under Clause (v) shall not apply to any person who has more than two Children on the date of commencement of the Orissa Grama Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1994 or, as the case may be, within a period of one year of such commencement, unless he begets an additional child after the said period of one year...”

3.1.2. The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced Entry-20A 'Population Control & Family Planning' to the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule with effect from 03.01.1977. This introduction is not without significance. It was made in the wake of rapidly growing population in the country so that Center & States can devise policies to control the growth rate. The Proviso to Clause (v) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act is one small measure in that direction. It came to be introduced by way of Amendment w.e.f. 18.04.1994, as on which date the Appellant had the 3^rd child born (11.03.1993) and the 4^th (06.11.1994). The Panchayat elections were admittedly held in the year 2022. Thus, the said Proviso was already in force since the preceding 18 years or so. Thus, the case of Appellant is one of Text Book for attracting the disqualification clause, the protective Proviso remaining miles away. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and by the Court below, in this regard, is thus unassailable.

3.2. A FRAGMENT ON THE LAUDABLE POLICY OF FAMILY PLANNING & ITS DIRE NEED

3.2.1. Section 25(1)(v) of