Orissa High Court Invokes Historical Warnings in Landmark Population Ruling
The Orissa High Court has delivered a significant judgment addressing India's population challenges, dismissing a petition filed by a gram panchayat member who faced disqualification for exceeding the statutory two-child limit. The court's ruling drew upon stark warnings from historical figures about the perils of overpopulation.
Churchill's Caustic Comment Resonates in Modern Context
Justice Krishna Shripad Dixit, authoring the verdict for a division bench alongside Justice Chittaranjan Dash, referenced British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's provocative statement: "India is not a nation, but a mere population." The bench noted that Churchill made this remark long before partition, when undivided India's population stood at approximately 30 crores. The court pondered what acerbic observation Churchill might offer today, given current demographic realities.
Philosophical and Economic Warnings on Population Explosion
The judgment extensively quoted British philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, who declared that "population explosion is more dangerous than hydrogen bomb." Additionally, the court cited British economist Thomas Robert Malthus, whose 1798 essay "An Essay on the Principle of Population" warned that unchecked population growth follows a geometric progression, potentially doubling every twenty-five years.
Even British poet Lord Byron's "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage" found mention, with the court quoting: "A thousand years scarce serve to form a State; an hour may lay it in the dust."
Contemporary Concerns and Pandemic Reflections
The bench highlighted recent difficulties faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that "memory has not faded about the difficulties which people of the country faced during Covid-19 pandemic because of space constraints when they were asked to maintain a safe distance." This practical example underscored the immediate challenges posed by dense populations.
Alarming Population Projections and Policy Gaps
Referencing United Nations data, the court noted that India's population, approximately 1.43 billion according to 2023 WHO figures, has since increased and is projected to reach 1.7 billion by 2050. The UNFPA India Policy for 2023-2027 identifies Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Odisha as priority states for addressing population growth rates. Odisha alone constitutes 3.32% of India's population.
The judgment expressed concern that policy makers have not adequately heeded Malthusian warnings, and that existing measures to control population growth remain unsatisfactory. The court observed that India's massive population hinders effective implementation of socio-welfare schemes and diminishes individual dignity and value.
Global Scientific Consensus on Population Challenges
The order referenced a collegium of 11,000 world scientists warning about profoundly troubling signs from human activities, including sustained increases in human and livestock populations, meat production, GDP, deforestation, fossil fuel consumption, and carbon emissions. Former UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar's concern was also cited, emphasizing that unchecked population growth in developing nations undermines economic development and leads to resource depletion.
Legal Context and Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner challenged termination from gram panchayat membership under Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, which disqualifies members with more than two children. The petitioner sought protection under provisions allowing exemption for those who already had more than two children when the 1994 amendment commenced, provided no additional children were begotten after a one-year grace period. The petitioner's counsel argued that since the third and fourth children were born in 1993 and 1994 respectively, the petitioner qualified for protection.
Constitutional Imperative and Societal Responsibility
The court emphasized that constitutional institutions and civil society must act decisively to address population challenges. While acknowledging that enumerating all consequences of rapid population growth falls beyond judicial domain, the bench stated there is "almost a global unanimity of opinion" that overpopulation causes environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and intensified societal challenges.
The judgment concluded by stressing the urgency for authorities to consider population control measures before a potential demographic crisis unfolds, noting that "more is not necessary to specify, and less is insufficient to leave it unsaid" regarding this critical issue.
