A shocking murder in Maharashtra exposes the dangers of India’s two-child norm, as Population Foundation of India urges states to repeal coercive population policies that criminalise reproductive choices and endanger women, girls, and democratic participation. 

India’s two-child norm, enforced in several states through disqualification from local elections, has triggered debate after a child’s death in Maharashtra. Population Foundation of India calls for repeal of coercive population policies, citing gender discrimination, constitutional concerns, demographic evidence, and the urgent need for rights-based family planning and gender equality. 

The nation was shocked when a young girl in Maharashtra was killed by her father, allegedly so he could run for local panchayat elections in accordance with the state's two-child rule. Here ambition and a broken system collided violently and a child paid the price. This act cannot be written off as a singular instance of cruelty. It is the terrible result of a legislative framework that equates political rights with reproductive choices and makes children, especially daughters, seem like liabilities.

When the state creates incentives that punish people for having more than a prescribed number of children, it normalizes fear, coercion and control within families. In such contexts, violence is not an aberration; it is an outcome shaped by law and policy, with girls often paying the highest price.

Population Foundation of India’s Position

Population Foundation of India has, for over two decades, consistently opposed the two-child norm. Our position, consistent with the International Conference on Population Development (1994) and National Population Policy (2000), has remained clear: fertility decisions must be voluntary, informed and rights-based. Policies that enforce family size through punitive measures, such as disqualifying citizens from contesting local elections, are unconstitutional, anti-poor and deeply discriminatory against women.

“India does not have a two-child norm at the national level, and that reflects both constitutional values and demographic reality,” said Poonam Muttreja, Executive Director, Population Foundation of India. “We strongly urge the states that continue to retain the two-child norm to repeal it immediately. No democratic system should link political participation to the number of children a person has.”

Evidence of Harm Without Demographic Gain

There is strong empirical evidence that the two-child norm causes serious harm without delivering demographic benefits. A detailed study by former IAS officer Nirmala Buch, which examined the impact of the policy across five Indian states, documented increases in unsafe and sex-selective abortions, men divorcing their wives (sometimes on paper) to remain eligible for elections, and children being abandoned or given up for adoption. Crucially, the study found no sustained reduction in fertility, showing that the policy fails even on its stated objective. So, there’s absolutely no rationale for a two-child norm.

At least eleven states introduced a two-child norm, almost always by disqualifying candidates from panchayat elections: Rajasthan (1992), Odisha (1993), Haryana (1994), Andhra Pradesh (1994), Himachal Pradesh (2000), Madhya Pradesh (2000), Chhattisgarh (2000), Uttarakhand (2002), Maharashtra (2003), Gujarat (2005), and Assam (2017). Several states—including Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana—later repealed the law after recognizing the social damage it caused.

“The pattern itself reveals the problem,” Muttreja said. “These restrictions apply only at the lowest level of political participation, never to MLAs or Members of Parliament. If the two-child norm were genuinely about responsible citizenship or population stabilization, it would apply uniformly. It does not, because it is designed to control the lives of the rural poor while leaving elites untouched.”

Demographic Reality and Gendered Burden

This case is made even more concerning by the demographic background. About 20 years ago, Maharashtra's fertility reached replacement level; according to NFHS-5 data, at 1.7, the state's fertility is already significantly below 2.1. The state is dealing with ageing and slowing population growth rather than a population explosion. Thus, coercive population policies have no demographic basis.

Women bear a disproportionate amount of the burden of these policies. The unmet need for family planning remains high. Male participation in contraception is still very low in India, where female sterilisation accounts for nearly two-thirds of modern contraceptive use. Daughters are seen as risks, women are pressured to have unsafe abortions, and violence is used to enforce adherence to state policy when political eligibility is linked to family size.

“Not only the individual father, we must also hold the states that uphold or justify two-child norms in spite of overwhelming evidence of harm are equally also accountable,” Muttreja said. Laws influence behaviour, and violence is a result of laws that penalise families for their reproductive choices rather than an exception.

India is already aware of what works and what doesn’t work. Instead of using coercion, states that achieved low fertility did so through gender equality, women's employment, girls' education, and access to voluntary family planning.

The lesson is clear: empowering women, not policing people, is the key to population stabilisation. The loss of Prachi is hugely unacceptable and tragic, but a wake-up call for policies to be reformed. 

Sustainable Futures, Climate And Justice, Development With Dignity, Environment And People, Responsible Growth, Climate Conversations, Equity And Sustainability, Planet First, Future Generations,