Two-Child Norm : Disqualified Councilor Attempts To Disown Third Child; Supreme Court Refuses To Accept

A municipal councilor from Maharashtra attempted to get over the disqualification for violating the two-child rule by showing the third child as belonging to someone else.

However, the attempt to 'disown' the third child turned out to be unsuccessful, as the Supreme Court refused to accept the argument. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had also rejected the said defense.

The issue related to the election of a woman named Anita Ramdas Magar to Solapur Municipal Council in 2017. Her election was challenged by a rival candidate on the ground that a third child was born to her after September 1, 2001, the date on which Maharashtra introduced a provision to disqualify people having more than two children from contesting local body elections. The trial court  found that Anita Magar had given birth to a daughter in 2004. Therefore, the trial court set aside her election holding her disqualified as per Section 10(1)(i)of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

Her argument was that the third child was born to another family. Her husband's brother and his wife were projected to be the parents of the disputed third child. The corrections made in the birth certificate of the child were relied upon to argue that the third child's parents were a different couple.

The trial court and the High Court noted that the birth certificate of the third child initially showed Anita Magar and her husband as the parents. The birth certificate was changed eight years after the child's birth, in 2012, to  show a different couple as the parents. This change was effected shortly before Anita Magar's husband filed nominations to contest ward elections in 2012. Based on the changed certificate, the Returning Officer had rejected a similar objection raised against the Anita Magar's husband in 2012.

However, the trial court and the High Court refused to accept the changed entries in the birth certificate, which were made at a belated stage. Also, the relevant intimation given from the hospital in 2004 showed Anita Magar and her husband as the parents.

The Courts also noted that the school records revealed that the third child belonged to Anita Magar and her husband. There was evidence to show that they had acted as her parents at the time of her school admission and were continuing to act in that capacity in affairs related to school.

A single bench of Justice CV Bhadang of the High Court upheld the order of the civil court setting aside Anita Magar's election.

"Considering the over all circumstances, the Trial Court is right in refusing to accept the contention that Poonam was the daughter of Sunita and Dattatray Magar. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that she was the daughter born to the petitioner and her husband", the High Court observed.

On July 12, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court judgment by dismissing Magar's special leave petition filed against it.

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed", a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed.

(Case : Sou.Anita Ramdas Magar vs Sou.Bhagalaxmi Prakash Mahanta and others)

Click here to read/download the Supreme Court order

Click here to read/download the Bombay High Court judgment