New Delhi: Upholding the disqualification of a Bhubaneswar resident from primary membership of a cooperative housing society for having more than two children, the Orissa High Court has drawn a stark picture of population explosion, calling it more dangerous than a “hydrogen bomb”.
Bhubaneswar resident Biswaranjan Mohanty had challenged a single-judge bench’s order that upheld his disqualification before a division bench of Justices Krishna S. Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash, claiming he was not the biological father of his third child.
The legal battle centered around Section 28(3)(p) of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act 1962. This section disqualifies an individual from being a member, president, or vice-president of a cooperative society’s management committee if they had “more than two children as on 1st January, 1995”.
In a nine-page verdict on 30 June, the division bench characterised the two-child limit in the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act as a “positive measure to check the population growth” in a country where the growth rate has already crossed the “Malthusian danger mark”.
Quoting British philosopher Bertrand Russell, the court further said that the world faces two “antithetical dangers”—the risk of the human race ending itself through “lavish use of H-bombs”, and the “opposite risk” that population increases to a point where only a “starved and miserable existence is possible”.
Emphasising the existential threat of overpopulation, the court observed it is a “mammoth challenge” that places “immense strain on environmental, societal & economic systems”.
“The unchecked population growth places immense strain on environmental, societal & economic systems. There is almost a global unanimity of opinion that overpopulation causes environmental degradation, resource scarcity and intensified societal challenges,” said the court.
It clarified that while the registrar must hold an enquiry into the “foundational facts” of a person’s family size, the disqualification itself occurs “by operation of law” once those facts are established.
In a 15 January order this year, the same bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash had similarly emphasised the dangers of overpopulation in another case. Maheswar Jena, a gram panchayat member, challenged his membership termination under the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act of 1964, which disqualifies a person from being a member if they have more than two children.
Quoting Bertrand Russell, the bench upheld his disqualification saying “population explosion is more dangerous than hydrogen bomb”, as it did in Mohanty’s case.
Also Read: Orissa HC issues India’s 1st annual report on state courts, and the findings are grim
Attempt to shift paternity
After Biswaranjan Mohanty had denied the paternity claims, the court found these arguments “unworthy of consideration” as his name was clearly reflected in the “father’s column” of the original birth register for the third child. He filed a cross-appeal before a division bench of the high court, alleging a violation of natural justice, claiming he was not given an adequate hearing.
The court viewed a subsequent attempt to rectify the register—seeking to name the appellant’s brother as the biological father—as a “post lis” (post-litigation) generation of evidence that lacked credibility. The bench viewed the sudden attempt to shift paternity as a lack of “moral confidence”, remarking that Mohanty, a man who had risen to the “pinnacle of confederation”, could not suddenly claim ignorance or illiteracy regarding his family’s status.
Regarding the claim that Mohanty was denied a fair hearing, the court ruled that principles of natural justice cannot be “chanted as a mantra”. Since Mohanty had been served notice and had filed written submissions, which failed to explicitly deny the three-child allegation, the court held that no prejudice had occurred.
The bench further upheld the authority of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, describing the official as the “conscience keeper” of the state’s statutory policy to check population growth.
Dismissing the appeal, the court upheld the January 2025 decision of a single judge and the orders of the cooperative authorities. The court concluded that an intra-court appeal—which the appellant had made—has “conventional constraints” and that it would not undertake a deeper examination of facts when the statutory authorities had followed due process. Ultimately, the bench affirmed that the two-child limit is a valid and necessary legal tool to address the “unchecked population” that leads to “misery and starvation”.
Highlighting the legislative intent behind population control, the Bench pointed to the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which added “Population Control & Family Planning” to the Concurrent List to allow both the Centre and states to devise policy.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)