Only Judicial Magistrate & Not Executive Magistrate Empowered To Verify Correctness Of Delayed Registration Of Births & Deaths: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently held that under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, only a Judicial Magistrate First Class has the authority to verify the correctness of delayed registration of births and deaths, which have not been registered within one year of their occurrence. An Executive Magistrate has no authority in this regard.Corollary to the ruling, it struck down Rule 9 of M.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 which authorised the Executive Magistrate along with JMFC for the said purpose. The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anand Pathak was essentially dealing with a writ appeal, preferred by the Appellant/Petitioner against the order of dismissal of his writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus. The case of the Petitioner was that he had earlier filed a writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus, contending that his 16 years old sister (Corpus) was kidnapped by the respondents (No.5 to No.8). The Police produced her before the Court, where she expressed her willingness to live with her parents. Accordingly, her statements were recorded and a case against the accused persons was registered for offences U/S 376 IPC and U/S 3,4 POCSO Act.The Petitioner alleged that the Corpus was again kidnapped by Respondent No.5 and because the police did not show any interest in investigating the matter, he filed another writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus before the Court. The Corpus was again produced before the Court where she stated that she was a major and had married Respondent No.5 on her own volition. She further conveyed that she wished to live at her matrimonial house. The Petitioner had argued before the Writ Court that the Corpus was a minor even at the time of her second abduction. However, the Corpus stated before the Court that she was a major and further contended that her parents had created a forged marksheet of a government school for age purpose, whereas she studied at a Madarsa. The Writ Court had observed that her father had lodged the FIR after she eloped the first time and mentioned her age to be 17 years and 11months, which even the Corpus accepted to be her correct age at the given time. However, in the instant petition, the brother showed her age to be different from the one mentioned in the FIR. The Writ Court thus, sided with the version of the Corpus and dismissed the petition, holding that she was indeed a major. Aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court, the Petitioner challenged the same on the ground that correct date of birth of Corpus was as 2/5/2003 and in support of his submissions, he referred to her birth certificate issued by Nagar Panchayat, Mau under the M.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. He also relied upon one certificate (undated) issued by Government Shastri Primary School Mau, in which her date of birth was referred as 2/5/2003. He also referred to her marksheet for the year 2011-12 (when she was in Class III), to suggest that date her date of birth was 2/5/2003. Per Contra, the state submitted that the birth certificate produced by Appellant was issued on 22/6/2020, whereby the date of birth of Corpus was referred by Chief Municipal Officer as 2/5/2003. He raised the question that after 17 years, the CMO could not have issued such birth certificate because it was governed by provisions as contained U/S 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. He further submitted that after passing the order by Writ Court dated 29/1/2020, this certificate was issued by CMO on 22/6/2020 and therefore, the same could not be taken into consideration. Based on the submissions of the parties, the Court noted that the question that arose in the matter was "whether CMO or for that matter Tahsildar as Executive Magistrate could have issued birth certificate after lapse of 17 years; whereas, jurisdiction as per Section 13 (3) of Act of 1969 lies with Judicial Magistrate only." Examining the relevant provisions under the Act of 1969, the Court observed that- "If Section 13(3) and 30 (f) (g) are seen in juxtaposition then it makes the legislative intent clear that by Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1969, Parliament has given the authority to Judicial Magistrate First Class (or Presidency Magistrate) to verify the correctness of the birth or death if not registered within one year of its occurrence and understandably so because after one year dispute and discrepancies may occur in respect of date of birth or death of a person."The Court elucidated the importance of determining the correctness of date of birth by referring to Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Protection & Care of Children) Act, 2015, wherein, person above 16 years but below 18 years, if commits heinous offence then, after due procedure as prescribed, may be tried in Children's Court rather than before Juvenile Justice Board....

Only Judicial Magistrate & Not Executive Magistrate Empowered To Verify Correctness Of Delayed Registration Of Births & Deaths: Madhya Pradesh HC

Zeeshan Thomas

The Court struck off Rule 9 of MP Registration of Births & Deaths Rules, 1999.

Tags