Editorial: Time to revisit two-child norm

CHENNAI: The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday (Nov. 4) that laws disqualifying people from contesting or holding local government posts for having more than two children are no longer relevant because the demographic basis for such policies has collapsed.

Back in 2003, when the court upheld the two-child norm, India’s total fertility rate (TFR), the average number of children a woman is likely to have during her reproductive lifetime, was 3.02. Today it is 1.9, which is below the desired replacement rate of 2.1 and is projected to fall further in the years ahead. The crude birth rate has halved from 36.9 per 1,000 people in 1971 to 18.3 in 2024.

So, the demographic concern for the country is no longer to curb population growth, as it was when such policies were adopted in the 1990s and 2000s. The imperative now is to arrest the declining birth rate in states that have TFRs less than the replacement rate.

While the national TFR stands at 1.9, several states in southern and western India have brought down their rate alarmingly below the replacement level.

For Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana and Maharashtra, their TFR falls in the 1.7-1.8 range. In West Bengal and Punjab, it is even more serious at 1.6. Then there are states or territories with extremely low fertility, such as Sikkim (1.1), Goa (1.3), Kashmir (1.4) and Ladakh 1.3). Only in a handful of states is the TFR higher than the replacement mark: Bihar (3.0), Meghalaya (2.9), UP (2.4), Jharkhand (2.2)

The data show that there is a basis for the Supreme Court to question the relevance of two-child restrictions. Today, with the TFR in 23 states and UTs below the replacement level, the need is to reorient policy towards managing an ageing workforce rather than enforcing outdated two-child policies. This calls for a closer look at laws and policies that contain provisions to punish families with more than two children or withhold welfare benefits from them.

While the Central government does not have a nationwide two-child penalty law, several states enforce such penalties in various forms, including denial of eligibility to contest local elections or get a government job or access to some welfare benefits.

In Assam, individuals with more than two children are barred from applying for state government jobs. In Maharashtra too, under the Civil Services Declaration of Small Family Rules, individuals with two children are barred from state government employment and local elections. Women with more than two children are blocked from specific benefits under the Public Distribution System.

The Supreme Court was justified in questioning the constitutionality of these provisions. The bench said such disqualifications interfere with the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21, which includes the freedom to decide whether, when and how many children to have.

Moreover, having a third child has no plausible connection to a person's ability to hold public office. Furthermore, these punitive provisions have had a disproportionate impact on women in our patriarchal society. As the court observed about how these laws are enforced, reproductive decisions are often influenced by husbands, while women bear the electoral consequences.

Once seen as a progressive idea, the two-child norm needs reconsideration. We need to revisit all policies and welfare schemes that are incongruous in the modern demographic context.