AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3057 ::2003 AIR SCW 3892 ::(2003) 8 IndLD 175 ::2004 SCC (L&S) 561 ::2003 (8) SCC 369 ::2003 (3) RecCivR 793 ::(2003) 5 Scale 602 ::(2003) 4 AllMR 707 (SC) ::(2003) 4 All WC 2920 ::(2003) 53 All LR 140 ::2003 (6) ACE 432 ::2003 (4) ICC 140 ::(2003) 4 Mad LW 533 ::2003 (3) Ker LT 59 ::(2003) 3 Ker LT 80 ::2003 (2) JabLJ 334 ::2003 (3) Pun LR 531 ::2003 (3) LandLR 314 ::2003 (4) SLT 683 ::2003 (5) Supreme 371 ::(2003) 10 AllIndCas 256 (SC) ::2003 (10) AllIndCas 256 ::2003 (8) SRJ 529 ::2003 (6) JT 183 ::(2003) 6 JT 283 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan, Arun Kumar , JJJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.14— Haryana Panchayati Raj Act (11 of 1994) , S.175(1)(q)— Office of Panch/Sarpanch - Disqualification to hold - S. 175(1)(q) disqualifying person with more than 2 @page-SC3058children - Not violative of Art. 14 - Classification made is based on intelligible differentia - Has nexus with object of popularising family planning. S. 175(1)(q) disqualifying persons having more than 2 children from holding certain elective offices of Panchayat does not suffer from vice of arbitrary classification. The classification made also has nexus with the object of popularising family planning. The classification is well-defined and well-perceptible. Persons having more than two living children are clearly distinguishable from persons having not more than two living children. The two constitute two different classes and the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia clearly distinguishing one from the other. One of the objects sought to be achieved by the legislation is popularizing the family welfare/family planning programme. The disqualification enacted by the provision seeks to achieve the objective by creating a disincentive. The classification does not suffer from any arbitrariness. The number of children, viz., two is based on legislative wisdom. It could have been more or less. The number is a matter of pol....