HC imposes costs on petitioner in PIL plea over two-child rule over local body polls

Telangana High Court on Monday imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a person who filed a PIL petition challenging the law prohibiting candidates having more than two children to contest local body polls after his counsel interrupted the bench while the order was being dictated.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing the PIL plea (which was at scrutiny stage) filed by one Avula Nagaraju from Nalgonda district seeking a direction to the Central and the State governments to permit persons having more than two children to contest the polls to local bodies. Having heard the contentions of the petitioner’s counsel, the bench was dictating the order when the petitioner’s counsel continued to make his submissions.

Taking an exception to the counsel’s repeated submissions on the matter even after making its stand clear, the bench imposed ₹25,000 costs on the petitioner. It directed the petitioner to deposit the sum with the account of the State Legal Services Authority within 30 days. The TSLA should inform the HC about the costs deposited by the petitioner. In case of failure, appropriate action would be initiated against the petitioner, the bench said.

Section 21 (3) of the Panchayat Raj Act-2018 bars candidates having more than two children from contesting the polls in local bodies. The petitioner wanted this section to be revoked and requested the HC to instruct the Central and State governments to permit persons with more than two children to contest local body polls. Hearing the plea (which was at scrutiny stage), the bench said it was for the law makers to take a fresh call on the matter.

Moreover, there was no public interest in the petition except the fact that the petitioner was individually expressing his grievance about the specific section of the law, the bench remarked. Though the Supreme Court upheld the provision in a verdict delivered in 2003, the matter can be re-examined by the law makers in the backdrop of the diminishing fertility rate.

However, it was not for the courts to interfere in the matter since the apex court already expressed its views on the point of law clearly, the bench said.