Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri P.P. Hegde, Sr. Advocate for Sri Venkatesh Somareddi.
For the Respondents: Sri B.V. Krishna, AGA, Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, DSGI.

The legal document discusses the challenge to a notification issued by the State Government of Karnataka amending Rule 9 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. The core issue is whether this amendment, which substitutes the authority for delayed registration of births and deaths from a Magistrate of the First Class or Presidency Magistrate to an Assistant Commissioner (Sub-Divisional Magistrate), exceeds the powers conferred under the parent legislation, the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

The court examined the scope of the rule-making power granted to the State Government under Section 30 of the Act, which authorizes the making of rules to carry out the purposes of the Act with the approval of the Central Government. It emphasized that delegated legislation, such as rules, must operate within the bounds of the parent statute's provisions and cannot enlarge or alter the scope of the powers conferred.

Specifically, the court noted that Section 13(3) of the Act explicitly confers judicial power on a Magistrate of the First Class or Presidency Magistrate to verify and pass orders regarding delayed registration of births and deaths. This confers a purely judicial function, which cannot be delegated to an administrative authority like an Assistant Commissioner, as such an action would contravene the legislative intent and the statutory scheme.

The court highlighted that rules cannot supplant or expand the powers granted by the parent Act, especially when the Act explicitly assigns judicial authority to certain officials. Any such attempt to do so would be ultra vires, or beyond the legal authority of the rule-making body, and therefore invalid.

Consequently, the court held that the amendment to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1999, which replaces the judicial authority with an administrative one, is beyond the rule-making powers of the State Government and is ultra vires the parent legislation. As a result, the notification amending Rule 9 was declared null and void, and all actions taken under it were also considered legally nullified.

In summary, the court reaffirmed the principle that delegated legislation must conform strictly to the scope of authority granted by the parent statute and cannot be used to alter the fundamental legal scheme established by the legislature.