The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant ruling, stating that a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) does not possess the authority to verify the date of birth or death. Consequently, the court nullified an order issued by the SDM Sadar of Etah and instructed that a death certificate be issued as per legal provisions within six weeks of receiving the order. This judgment was pronounced by a division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit. The ruling came after hearing arguments from advocate Arvind Kumar Singh, representing the petitioner Santosh Kumar from Ambari village in Sheetalpur block, Etah, along with the government counsel.
Legal Reference to Madras High Court Decision
While delivering the verdict, the Allahabad High Court referenced the Madras High Court’s ruling in the case of Velu vs. Madathi. The court clarified that under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, if a birth or death is not registered within one year, the registration can only be done after confirmation by a First-Class Magistrate or Presidency Magistrate, accompanied by the payment of the required fee.
Verification Scope Limited to Fact, Not Date
The Allahabad High Court emphasized that neither the Act nor the Rules outline any specific procedure for verifying the authenticity of a birth or death. The court highlighted that the role of the Judicial Magistrate under Section 13(3) is restricted to verifying the occurrence of birth or death. The magistrate’s jurisdiction does not extend to determining the exact date of birth or death, especially in cases involving date disputes.
The court clarified that the verification by the magistrate is limited solely to ascertaining whether the birth or death took place. If satisfied, the magistrate should order registration. If unsatisfied, the application should be denied. Resolving disputes concerning the precise date is beyond the scope of the magistrate’s powers under Section 13(3).
Responsibility Under Section 8
The High Court further elaborated on Section 8 of the Act, which mandates that any individual with knowledge or belief regarding a birth or death is obligated to provide information for registration. The court ruled that if a magistrate, after due verification, is not convinced that the event took place, the request must be rejected. Conversely, if the magistrate is satisfied, registration should proceed without investigating the exact date. Aggrieved parties disputing the date can seek recourse through civil courts or other appropriate legal forums.
Case Background
Advocate Arvind Kumar Singh informed the court that the petitioner’s father, Laturi Singh, passed away on January 12, 1987. When the need for a death certificate arose, Santosh Kumar applied to the SDM Sadar, Etah, on October 18, 2023. The SDM directed the BDO of Sheetalpur to investigate and submit a detailed report within a week. The BDO assigned the task to the VDO of Jirsimi, who declined to issue the certificate, citing uncertainty regarding the date of death.
Following this, the BDO submitted the report to the SDM Sadar. Despite the petitioner presenting supporting evidence, including a certificate from the village head and an updated Khatauni reflecting inheritance after his father’s death, the SDM rejected the application, citing the unclear date of death.
High Court Intervention
Aggrieved by the SDM’s decision, Santosh Kumar approached the Allahabad High Court. After reviewing the case, the court quashed the SDM’s order and directed the issuance of the death certificate in accordance with legal requirements within six weeks.
This ruling serves as a critical precedent, clarifying the limited role of SDMs and Judicial Magistrates under the Birth and Death Registration Act, ensuring that citizens are not wrongfully denied essential documents due to procedural overreach.