The primary subject of discussion in the general public sphere was the country's
demographic population expansion. The supporters like me call for a stringent laws for population control, under which having more than two kids would result in emancipation and ban on applying for government employment, running for office, or buying new real estate in the nation. The opponents, on the other hand, are upbeat about the numerous public consciousness efforts that have been conducted, the rise in literacy among ordinary citizens,
and the declining total fertility rate (TFR) in the nation..
Regarding statistic published most recently in the world population report, it has been estimated on the track to be the world most populous country with the population estimated by 142.8 cr by the middle of the year marching ahead from al
It is also pertinent to bring up that the population control bill was frequently brought up and then dropped by members of parliament because it did not receive the corefront envisioned acceptance from the legislature.
In this article We would examine the historical backdrop of the relevant problems as well as the constitutional and legal viability of any such draught Act in conjunction with this essential analysis.
Background
The need for enacting strict population control laws is not new, and it has remained a hot topic for over forty years now. Up to 36 private memberhas brought bills for regulating population have been submitted in the Parliament since independence. The population control law that had previously been hammered out on the floor of the parliament included depiction and representsation from nearly all of the main national and regional parties, unlike the current agony of political attitude in such deliberations. The party breakdown of the lawmakers who introduced these bills is as follows: Congress – 15, BJP – 9, TDP – 5,
AIADMK – 2, TMC – 1, RSP (Revolutionary Socialist Party) – 1, SP – 1, MNS – 1, and RJD –
1. These are a few rare instances in which legislators in the house have transcended political affiliations to act in the best interests of the country. However, after being shown 36 times, discourse and discourse remained a remote possibility. However, Rakesh Sinha's measure,
which was aimed at enforcing the two-child rule by rewarding people who follow the modest family practise and punishing those who do not, was the first of its kind to be discussed when it was tabled during the most recent session of the Parliament. It's interesting to note that the 79th Constitutional Amendment Bill, delivered in 1992 by the late M.L. Fotedar, then minister of health and family welfare, have made the two-child limit a requirement for the Lok Sabha and the legislative assembly elections. It was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, but the debate was postponed because as Fote Dar left the Congress party and the administration following the Babri mosque destruction. The bill hasn't been addressed yet and is still waiting. Lack of agreement on such a crucial matter demonstrates political elite lethargy and evasion, which is far more motivated by the vote banks than by the interests of the country.. However, the nation had a glimmer of optimism when the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, raised the horrendous problem of growing populations during his Independence Day address delivered from the turrets of Red Fort in the year 2019. The passage of a legislation to stop the population's accelerating expansion, which is depleting the nation's many but finite resources, has been made possible as a result of this. If the aforementioned duty is not carried out as soon as possible, India will soon become the ideal example of Malthusian
Theory. An English political economist and demographer named Robert Malthus proposed that although the population expands geometrically, the food supply grows arithmetically. Therefore, in all probability, such disequilibrium will destabilize the country. India is in
seventh place in terms of area whereas second in terms of population, for and if the population continues to grow at such a rapid pace as in the current times, then it will inevitably overtake China next year17.7% of the worldwide population lives in a country
with just 2% of the world's landmass, whereas China, with about the same population, occupies more than 6% of the planet's surface. Therefore, it follows that such issues should be address and regulations must be introduced together with severe sanctions to slow the pace
of population increase in the nation. It's essential to take into account that a PIL asking for the formulation of the rules for the two-child policy had been submitted on March 9, 2018, but
the Honourable Supreme Court of India rejected the case since it was seen to be a legislative matter.
Legal Issues Involved
Whether or if the government can enact such a legislation to slow the rate of population increase is the most important of all the questions that address the basis of the problem.
Unambiguously, the response is yes. As stated in item 20A in the concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, the government has the authority to enact laws pertaining to family planning and managing the population. This was inserted in 1976 as part of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, and it became effective on January 1st, 1977. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution was established by the then-prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, on February 22, 2000, and was presided over by Justice Venkatchalliah. A 1,979-page report with two years of comprehensive study was sent to Sh. Arun Jaitley, the then-minister of law and justice, on March 31, 2002. The panel recommended creating modest families in its report in order to reduce population growth. The report, however, was never presented to the Parliament. The National Population Policy, 2000, which is the subsequent of these policies, is still used by the government. The first
national population policy, which raised the marriage age for males and girls to 21 and 18, correspondingly, went into effect in 1976. However, it is obvious from the statistics that these kinds of attempts without a de facto required clause give offenders carte blanche.. Sadly, the sparse but extensive talks on the pressing need to pass a population control measure are hampered by a number of legal and constitutionally challenging concerns. It seems sense to
approach these problems one at a time.
Firstly, In order to get a male kid, the population control legislation may lead to hazardous
and sex-selective abortion. As the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003, also known as the PC-PNDT Act, makes it illegal to determine the sex of the unborn child or even use sex-selection technologies, it is difficult to
accept such concern that is based on an argument that is illegal. The aforementioned
argument may, at worst, be persuasive in the context of the one-child policy, but when there is already a choice to have another kid, there is no need to use any unlawful means.
Contrarily, a Lancet report found that 15.6 million abortions occurred in India in 2015.
Despite the law has not yet been put into effect, the threat of an ever-rising abortion rate still severely affects Indian culture.
Secondly, A guy can separate from his wife if she does not bear him a son. Such a claim is a tenet of misogyny. Divorce is a complicated legal process that necessitates following the correct legal protocol. The absence of a son cannot be used as grounds for divorce. No one
may, consequently, approach the Court to request a divorce on this basis.
Thirdly, Candidates who are unable to run for office may offer their kids up for adoption in order to do so. Such a claim is wholly unrelated to the subject at hand. If that had been the case, this rule would have been in effect in states including Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Orissa, where adhering to the two-child rule is a requirement to run for local office. The regulation has been effectively implemented, and no unfavourable effects have been noted.
Fourthly, For a law or rule could work against the interests of women, weaker groups, and SC/ST people. This claim likewise fails to make sense logically. It is crucial to note that sufficient provisions are already being made through various government assistance programmes for their empowerment and elevation. No one else would profit from the
adoption of this regulation than those who fall under the same category and meet the requirements, as there are provisions for the reserving of seats for SC/ST and women in local body elections. Describing this bill "anti-Dalit" or "anti-women" is utterly improper and out
of place; doing so simply serves to impede the country's growth..
Fifthly, Whatever lies beyond for a family with two disabled children? First and foremost, a
rule cannot be an exception. Additionally, it is prejudiced to make such a claim, and an
ethical, equitable society wouldn't embrace it. Giving a third kid any window at all in these
situations would be unfair. This will communicate the incorrect idea that a person with a handicap is not treated equally to a regular person. Such a claim that is based on the foundations of inequality should be rejected right away..
Sixthly, Disenfranchisement as a form of retribution would go against both Articles 21 and 19(1)(a). It is important to note that numerous democracies have a comparable law that allows for disenfranchisement in different situations. For example, a number of US states,
including Virginia and California, have a law that prevents felons who have been convicted of crimes from voting. By 2020, 5.1 million Americans will be unable to vote, but this does not necessarily mean that they will be imprisoned. After being granted parole and other
remedies, almost 75% of them now reside in communities settelment . In 1976, there were 1.17 million of these prisoners, but by the 2020 US Presidential election, there were 5.1 million. In Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 US 24 (1974), an exemption to Section 2 of the 14th
Amendment, which forbids such convicts from voting, was contested before the US Supreme Court. California statute, which the California Supreme Court had earlier ruled was unconstitutional, was upheld by the US Supreme Court. According to guidelines established
by the US Supreme Court, states must normally prove that a voting limitation is required by a "compelling state interest" and is the simplest means to accomplish the state's goal. Similar to other cases, India's population growth and growing density are putting the nation on the edge of an eventual civil war. This is causing definite havoc.
Seventhly, The government frequently cites the ICPD (International Conference for Population and Development) wherever lawmakers ask about population control, claiming that because India is bound by the rules, bringing legislation for control of population does not seem feasible. When the administration was pressed in 2015 by MPs J.C. Reddy Vs Parvesh Sahib Singh about population control, the ironclad report of the ICPD was highlighted in the response. Similar justifications were provided in 2017 in response to inquiries from MPs Suresh Doddalalli Vs Uday Pratap Singh. It is widely accepted that municipal law would always take precedent over international law in the event of a disagreement between the two each sovereign nation has the right to safeguard its integrity cohesiveness as well as its security, according to a widely acknowledged tenet of international law that has existed since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The ability of the nations to do this is unrestricted, and even the ICPD manifesto permits every country to
establish procedures and regulations for any form of population control & family planning methods for its residents in accordance with the relevant legal requirements and culture.
Furthermore, no sovereign nation may be subject to such limitations.
About the author
The name of the author is Kamlesh Singh He is a second year student of Bharti Vidyapeeth-
New Law college He can be cojntacted via Kamlesh.new.law.college @gmail.com or via
dropping a text on following id https://www.linkedin.com/in/kamlesh-singh-94045b222
Please read concluding on thedailyguardian.com