In Madhya Pradesh, a forest recently became the unlikely refuge for a three-day-old infant, abandoned beneath a stone by his own parents. His parents were neither poor nor uneducated—both were government school teachers. Their fear was not of poverty, but of losing their jobs for having a fourth child. The incident stems from Madhya Pradesh’s two-child rule for government employees, enforced from January 26, 2001, which disqualifies staff with more than two children. In 2022 alone, 954 teachers in Vidisha district received notices for violating this law. This is not an isolated policy. Assam, Maharashtra and Rajasthan also penalise government employees for breaking the two-child norm. Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Telangana disqualify such individuals from contesting local bodies’ elections. Chhattisgarh, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh have since revoked comparable measures, while Uttar Pradesh never followed up on a similar Bill. Framed as population control, these norms operate as instruments of economic coercion. The law has judicial backing. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a Rajasthan employee that it was a matter of state discretion.
In a largely patriarchal society, the abandonment of a male newborn shows how state-imposed fear can overwhelm natural parental instinct. The infant is now under medical supervision, and the parents may face charges, including attempted murder. The criminal case will follow its course, but the policy that cornered them into such an act remains largely unquestioned. Punitive two-child norms do not prevent childbirth. Often, pregnancies go unregistered, deliveries occur at home, and children vanish from official records. Ironically, this coercive focus contrasts with parts of South India, where anxiety over declining population share shapes political debate. States that successfully reduced fertility rates now fear losing central tax devolution and parliamentary representation in future delimitation exercises. In Andhra Pradesh, for instance, there have even been calls for couples to have more children.
At its core, this reflects the enduring tension between family autonomy and state interests in population control. Reproductive choices should be guided by health, awareness and dignity, not threats to livelihood. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty, including bodily autonomy, while Article 16 ensures equal access to public employment. Sustainable population control arises not from coercion, but through access to healthcare, education and financial security. Reduce birth rates peacefully, not punitively