On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a series of petitions, including one advocating for the implementation of a two-child policy to address the escalating population, asserting that this matter falls within the purview of the government. The court, led by Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka, pointed to media reports indicating India’s population stabilizing despite increased births, deeming it an issue not warranting the court’s intervention.
The bench, orally observing that population growth is not something that abruptly stops, rejected pleas presented by various petitioners, including Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Upadhyay had filed a petition challenging a Delhi High Court order that dismissed his plea for measures, including a two-child norm, to curb population growth.
Despite Upadhyay’s emphasis on the importance of a Law Commission report on the matter, the Supreme Court, expressing reluctance to delve into legislative matters, rejected the petitions. Upadhyay subsequently withdrew his plea, and other petitioners followed suit upon the court’s disinterest.
The bench questioned the feasibility of enacting legislation and emphasized that the issue of a two-child norm pertains to the government’s domain. It dismissed the idea of the Law Commission preparing a report on population explosion, stating that it was beyond the court’s purview due to the involvement of complex social and family dynamics.
The court maintained that addressing the two-child norm and related issues falls under the government’s jurisdiction, stating that interference by the court is not warranted. It conveyed that the court has other priorities and should not be involved in matters best addressed by the government.
During the proceedings, Upadhyay highlighted India’s limited land and water resources in relation to its substantial population. The Supreme Court, on January 10, 2020, had sought responses to the plea challenging the high court’s order. The appeal contended that controlling population growth was essential for securing fundamental rights, including the right to clean air, drinking water, health, sleep, shelter, livelihood, and education. The high court had asserted that the responsibility for enacting laws rested with Parliament and state legislatures, not the judiciary. The plea argued that population explosion was linked to various issues, including corruption and heinous crimes.
