Anyone who wants to register a birth or death more than two years after it happened must now first obtain an order from a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (JMFC). The Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2026 was notified on 6 August and came into force on 1 October. It adds section 13(3A) to the 1969 Act. Under the amended provision, a Registrar cannot register a birth or death more than two years after its occurrence without an order from a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

Although the government presents the change as a countermeasure against fraud and delayed reporting, the legislation paradoxically reinstates a court-based step that Parliament removed only three years ago through the 2023 amendment. Under the original section 13(3), before the 2023 amendment, any registration delayed by more than one year required a formal order from a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - courts treated this as a judicial function. In Savio Jose Xavier Viegas v. Dr. Mariano Godinho, the Bombay High Court held that an executive magistrate cannot exercise the judicial function, reasoning that such an officer lacks the tools of adjudication. The 2023 amendment (Act 20 of 2023) sought to streamline the system by transferring this power to the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate. The Gujarat High Court explicitly validated that administrative shift in Minaxi Chandulal Shah v. Union of India (2025). The 2026 Act changes direction once again, sending long-delayed applications right back to the courtroom.

The 2023 Act did more than move the power. For anyone born on or after 1 October 2023, the birth certificate became the proof of date and place of birth for school admission, driving licences, voter lists, marriage registration, public employment, passports and Aadhaar. The Act also gave a 30-day appeal against a Registrar's action, to be decided within 90 days, and required certificates to be issued within seven days.

The 2026 Act keeps the executive route open for delays between one and two years and sends everything beyond two years to the JMFC. The Statement of Objects states that the aim is to make delayed registration stricter and to encourage timely reporting; it sets no timeline or remedy, and it starts operating while the digital system that must carry these cases is already struggling; a targeted verification safeguard would serve the stated aim. A blanket two-year cliff mostly burdens families who never had paperwork to begin with.

India does not have a registration problem, but a lack of prompt reporting. The Civil Registration System (CSR) recorded 99.1% of estimated births and 99.4% of deaths in 2024, up from 56% and 48% in 2000. Thirteen States cross 90% registration within the 21-day window, while several others register fewer than 80%, and some as few as 50%, on time.

Late registration is therefore largely a question of access. A hospital reports the births it handles, and benefits attached to institutional delivery push families to register. However, a home birth depends on a family member reaching a registrar. Government Health Management Information System Standard (HMIS) report data of 2023 showed that home deliveries, though a small share of births nationally, remain common in Meghalaya (42.8%), Nagaland (21.7%) and Manipur (19.4%). Terrain and distance are the barriers there. The positive side is that rising institutional births shrink the problem of late registrations on their own, without any stricter law. The families who remain left out are often those with the least access to information, assistance and administrative support.

The government's main concern is the possibility of fraud. Since 2023, birth registration data can be shared with authorities responsible for electoral rolls, Aadhaar, ration cards, passports, driving licences and property registration. This makes the accuracy of birth records increasingly crucial, as false entries can affect multiple official records. The concern is not imaginary. A Free Press Journal report on a Mumbai MLA's letter links the tighter scrutiny in the city to controversies over alleged fraudulent birth certificates. A judicial magistrate is also better placed than an executive officer to test evidence, as the Bombay High Court noted. However, this concern can be addressed through stricter verification rather than a fixed two-year limit. The government has not provided data on how many delayed registrations were approved under the 2023 procedure.

Section 13(3A) does not specify a time limit for the JMFC to decide an application, even though Parliament considered 90 days sufficient for an appeal in 2023. It also does not clearly define the verification process, the documents required, or the procedure to follow if the magistrate rejects the application. Section 25A provides for appeals against decisions of the Registrar or District Registrar, but does not explicitly cover refusals by the JMFC. As a result, families whose applications are rejected may have to seek other remedies, such as revision or a writ petition.

The order must come from the magistrate with jurisdiction over the place where the birth or death occurred. While this may be convenient for those who continue to live there, it can create difficulties for students living abroad, migrant workers, and widows who have moved to another city after their husband's death. Additionally, section 30 grants the state flexibility in respect of fees and procedure, which will vary from state to state. The 2026 Act has two sections and unfortunately has no saving clause, which caused uncertainty for those applicants who are pending before a District Magistrate / SDM on 1 October.

Struggling Digital system

A report from Nagpur illustrates what can happen when an additional verification layer is introduced into an already under-resourced system. The Registrar General of India has issued a joint approval from the District Registrar and District Health Officer for the date before 2016 as a compulsory condition for the registrations, on 8 June. Since then, about 3,400 applications are pending at the district level, and more than 4,500 are under process at the Nagpur Municipal Corporation since June. The district currently operates with a single login to the Civil Registration System through which approximately 100 applications are approved each day against 300 to 400 applications arriving daily. The Municipal Commissioner has directed officials to request additional logins from the Central Registrar. This backlog predates the 2026 Amendment and is not attributable to it. However, it shows the administrative capacity into which an additional judicial layer is now being introduced.

Mumbai tells a similar story, particularly for applicants requiring birth certificates for visas. On 21 July 2026, the Free Press Journal reported that portal glitches and stricter verification were delaying the issue and correction of birth certificates, hitting students preparing for university admissions and visas abroad. Congress MLA Amin Patel asked the BMC and the State for priority assistance.

The main challenge is going to be faced by families that have not registered the birth of their child now need to obtain a court order to get the document for passport, Aadhaar or admission in a school. For deaths, the same wait falls on widows and heirs who need the certificate for pensions, insurance and mutation of property.

None of these issues requires removal of judicial scrutiny. Parliament or the States could set a time limit within which the JMFC must dispose of applications, such as the 90 days used for appeals. They could add an appeal or revision process, allowing an application to be filed at the place of residence with subsequent transfer to the appropriate court, and add a savings clause for pending applications. Requiring a verification report from the Registrar or health department could help the magistrate assess the application without repeating the entire verification process. The government should also release data on fraudulent registrations and pending applications. Adequate administrative capacity, including access to more CRS logins, should be ensured before introducing any additional procedural requirements. Achieving 99% birth registration is a significant accomplishment, but the new procedure may make the remaining cases more difficult to resolve. The families most affected are likely to be those living in remote areas and facing economic or administrative barriers, who must now approach a court to complete the registration process.

Author is a B.A. LL.B student at National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi. Views are personal.