Which authority is competent to pass any order authorizing delayed registration of birth or death?

Hence, 
authority     like   Executive Magistrate mentioned in Rule   10(3) does 
not     posses     jurisdiction     to   pass   any   order   authorizing     delayed 
registration of birth  or  death. 

We,therefore,   restrain   the     respondents   from   taking   any 
cognizance   of   an order passed by   the Executive Magistrate or any 
other authority except Judicial Magistrate, First Class or   metropolitan
Magistrate under  section 13 (3)  while taking entry  of a birth or death 
which has taken place more than one year  before  the  date on which 
its   information is being  furnished

CRIMINAL  PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
(Freedom firm   Th: Mincy Mohan Baby Vargase) vs.  Chief Welfare  Committee of 
Nagpur :   Through Its Chairman and others )

CORAM :   B.P.DHARMADHIKARI  & 
A.S.CHANDURKAR  JJ.
Dated; 17 December 2013


Affidavit filed on behalf of   respondent no.7­A is taken on 
record.  Counter  tendered by Shri Rathod   is also taken on record.
3.
Shri Rathod has stated that  all   dates of  births and deaths 
are now  available  on­line and  search engines being employed are not 

adequate. He has invited attention to two instances where the search 
failed  and the   blank      print  outs   to  substantiate.         These   are  also 
4.
annexed by him along with  the affidavit.
Shri   Kasat,   learned   Advocate,   however,   upon   instructions 
submits that the entire  data is maintained in Excel  form  and random 
search is also possible.    According to him, therefore, if name  of father 

or mother or child  or  any single  detail is fed into  the  search engine, 
the entries  can be  retrieved.    We  note  a  statement in affidavit filed 
by Advocate Rathod which shows   the case where the multiple   birth 
certificates  came to be  issued in relation    to two girl   children  and 
police have taken its cognizance. 
5.
However, Shri Kasat submits that   Shri Rathod along with 
him and his Officers (Corporation­employee)   can   again   attempt a 
search   and   thereafter   this   Court     should   pass       appropriate   further 
orders in the matter.   We  accept the   request   made by Shri Kasat 
and   accordingly  permit the petitioner through its Advocate, Advocate 
Kasat and a statistician of the concerned Department to find out   the 
adequacy of the search  engine.

6. The other   arguments   advanced by Advocate Rathod and 
left open  by this Cort in its order dated 29th November, 2013 is about 
competency of  an Executive Magistrate to pass an order under Section 
13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969  (henceforth 
abbreviated   to   “Act   of   1969”).   The   said   Section   13   (3)     reads   as 
under :­
“13(3)  :   Any   birth     or   death   which   has   not   been 

registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be 
registered only on an order made by  a magistrate of 
the   first   class   or   a   Presidency   Magistrate   after 
verifying   the correctness of the birth or death and on 
payment  of the prescribed  fee.”
7.
Inviting  attention to provisos to  section 30 of Act of 1969, 
Shri Rathod  submits that the power to make rules conferred by  said 
Section,  is limited and it does not empower  the State Government to 
clothe the    Executive Magistrate with powers under Section 13(3). He 
is  seeking support  from the judgment of  the learned single  Judge of 
Karnataka   High   Court   in   the   matter   of    B.G.   Gangadharappa     vs.  
Tahsildar (  1995  Cri.LJ.   2820).  

8. He also points out that in earlier order, this Court had asked 

the   State   Government   to   challenge   the   order   of   Judicial   Magistrate 
First  Class    releasing   the  girl   child  in   custody  of  her   father     before 
appropriate forum  and that order has not been complied with.
Learned Government Pleader states that appropriate steps 
9.

to   challenge   the   said   order   have   also   already   been     initiated   and 
compliance will be  reported to this Court within  forty eight hours.
He also  reads out  Section 30 of the Act of 1969  to urge 
10.
that it empowers the State  Government to  frame  rules  to carry out 
purposes of  Act of 1969.  He contends   that the  heads given in sub­
section (2)  are only illustrative and not  exhaustive. Without prejudice 
to these submissions, he further contends that Section 13 (3)   cannot 
be read to bar an Executive Magistrate from passing an order under it. 
Learned   G.P.   submits   that     Executive   Magistrate   is   generally     a 
Tahsildar   and,   therefore,   responsible   officer   who   also   regularly 
discharges quasi ­judicial functions
11.
Advocate Kasat      supports the  arguments of learned GP. 
He  submits that though registers in prescribed  proforma  as such have 
been discontinued, all relevant   details   are available and     print­out 

produced     before this Court along with the affidavit of Respondent 
no.7­A   contains     those   details.   He   further   states   that   numbers   and 
dates  given in remark  column   are the numbers of orders and date of 
orders passed by the Executive Magistrate.   He argues that thus the 
respondent   no.7­A   has conducted its affairs in accordance with the 
We   accept     the   statement   made   by   learned   G.P.       that 

12.
rules framed by the State Government
compliance   with   directions   to   challenge   the   order   of   Judicial 
Magistrate First Class, shall be made   within 48 hours. Similarly   we 
also permit the petitioner to again     attempt   search by using   any 
detail   at random     in the presence of   statistician and also Advocate 
Kasat.
13.
Insofar  as  the provisions to  Section 13(3)   of the Act of 
1969     are   concerned,   the   said   provisions     need   to   be   construed   in 
background of sub­section (2). Sub­section (2) contemplates entry   of 
delayed death or  delayed birth provided  the information is  furnished 
within   one   year     of   event.       It     stipulates   that   the   entry   can   be 
registered only with  written permission of  prescribed authority  and 
on payment of prescribed fees and production of an affidavit   made 

before a Notary Public   or  any other office authorised in this behalf by 
the State Government.  The word   “prescribed” has been defined 2 (e) 
to mean prescribed  by Rules under Act of 1969.  In contradistinction, 
sub­section (3)   specifically mentions the Magistrate of First Class or 
Presidency Magistrate who are competent to pass the orders to enter 
the information relating to death or birth if it is more than one year 
after the event.   Thus, it  does not empower the  rule­making authority 

and hence the  discretion to specify the  authority which is  stipulated 
sub­section (2)   is  deliberately  not provided  for in sub­section (3). 
The   authorities   empowered   for   such   delay     beyond   one   year   are 
Magistrates   of   First   Class   or       a   Presidency   Magistrate.       The   said 
phrases     are   explained     in   Section   3     of   the   Code   of   Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. Sub­section (3)   stipulates   that unless the context 
otherwise requires any   reference in   any enactment   passed before 
commencement of 1973 Code   to  a Magistrate of First Class needs to 
be     construed     as   a   reference     as   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class. 
Similarly,  reference to Presidency Magistrate needs to be construed  as 
reference   to     Metropolitan   Magistrate.   Sub­section   (4)   of   Section   3 
again  states  that  when  such   functions  exercisable        by Executive Magistrate 
under any other law involves appreciation or sifting    of  evidence or 
formulation   of   any   decision   which   exposed   any   person     to   any 

punishment   or   penalty   or     detention   in   custody         pending 
investigation, inquiry  or  trial  or  would have   the effect of  sending 
him for trial before in any  Court,  such  power     needs to be exercised 
by a judicial  Magistrate If    power is   administrative or  executive  in 
nature   such as  granting of licence,  suspension  or  cancellation of a 
licence, sanctioning a prosecution or  withdrawing from  a prosecution, 
14.

the said powers  can be exercised by the Magistrate.
Here,   the   Judicial   Magistrate of first class  or   Presidency   Magistrate 
under   section   13   (3)     is         obliged   to   pass   an   order   after   due 
verification   of   correctness   of   birth   or   death.       The   said   verification 
necessarily will involve   appreciation or sifting   of evidence but then 
we do not find it necessary to go to Sub­section (3)  of Section  13 for 
the present. 
15
Section  13  sub­section (3)    permits the State Government 
or  Central Government to prescribe fees only.   Thus,  the  rule to be 
made  under  said provision at the most can    prescribe   fees. In  this 
background, when sub­section (2)  of  Section 30  entry (f)     is looked 
into,     it   speaks   of     an   authority   which   may     grant   permission   for 
registration of   birth or   death   under   section 13 (2).     This is   in 

consonance with   stipulation in that   sub­section.       Absence of any 
mention of Section 13  sub­section (3)  therefore clearly shows absence 
of power with     rule­making   authority   to specify an authority other 
than Judicial Magistrate or metropolitan Magistrate to exercise powers 
under Section 13 (3).
The provisions of  Rule 9(3) of the   Registration of  Births 
16

and Death Rules,  2000 to that  extent  must  yield   to section 13 (3) 
and   also   therefore   need   to   be   read   down     accordingly.   Hence, 
authority     like   Executive Magistrate mentioned in Rule   10(3) does 
not     posses     jurisdiction     to   pass   any   order   authorizing     delayed 
registration of birth  or  death. 
17.
We,therefore,   restrain   the     respondents   from   taking   any 
cognizance   of   an order passed by   the Executive Magistrate or any 
other authority except Judicial Magistrate, First Class or   metropolitan
Magistrate under  section 13 (3)  while taking entry  of a birth or death 
which has taken place more than one year  before  the  date on which 
its   information is being  furnished
18.
We direct the  respondent nos. 6  and 7   to circulate these 

directions in paras 13 to 18 (supra)   to all  authorities functioning  in 
the State  under the  Act of 1969.
With these, we place the matter   for further consideration 
on 21   December, 2013

Print Page