Can ?national interest? override private choice? It can, in Haryana and in a few other Indian states. The Supreme Court has now upheld the Haryana assembly?s legal competence to enact a law that could disqualify a member of the municipality if he or she has more than two living children. Last year, the court had upheld another law in Haryana which debars people with more than two children from entering panchayats and zilla parishads. By allowing a certain kind of population policy to climb up the ladder of state (from panchayats to the municipality), the court has now paved the way for the next step ? making the same prohibition apply to members of parliament and of legislative assemblies. Only then, perhaps, such a way of creating exemplars in public office would appear somewhat more just and equitable. The court is clear about such laws not violating the fundamental or constitutional rights of citizens by, say, curbing religious freedom. Besides, contesting elections is not a fundamental right. Social welfare, public order, national morality and collective health can all be valid grounds for such legislation. The court is obviously sending out an urgent message about the nature of India?s population crisis. It is estimated that India?s population will be around 1.62 billion in 2050 ? 250 million people more than the number of people in China that year.

Such a note of urgency is understandable in this context. But welfare, order, morality and health, or rights, laws and freedoms do not exist in a realm of legal or constitutional abstractions and ideals. Given India?s vast size and the inequalities of income, education, political representation and access to healthcare, and given, in turn, the gendering of these inequalities, implementing such legal prohibitions might be difficult. The law and the state might just end up punishing the victim, excluding the already deprived and debarring the unrepresented. This would be particularly true of rural women with more than two children, since very few of them have actual control over the number of children they have. Haryana?s record in female foeticide is not encouraging, and imposing a two-child norm could make the situation worse. No policy, or its translation into law, however humane and nuanced, will work or be perceived to be just without fundamental improvements in education, health and employment opportunities.