$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 +

% LPA 136/2026 UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Mr.

Mahesh Gautam & Ms. Anjali Yadav, Advocates.

Versus GURMEET SINGH AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Sang, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Ms. Harshita Nathrani & Mr. Ayushman Vachher, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 16585/2026 (Delay)

1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties, the delay in filing the present Appeal is condoned.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

LPA 136/2026

3. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Rajat Sang, learned Counsel representing Respondent No.1 and Mr.

Sameer Vashisht, learned Counsel representing Respondent No.2.

4. By instituting the proceedings of this intra-court appeal challenge has been made to the order dated 09.01.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition seeking review of the order dated 16.10.2025 has been rejected.

5. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the directions issued in the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge to the Registrar General of India is against the powers conferred by the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (“Act”) upon him and therefore the learned Single Judge has erred not only while passing the order dated 16.10.2025 but also in rejecting the application seeking review of the order by means of the Impugned Order.

6. The Respondent No.1 had filed W.P.(C) No.546/2025 with the prayer that Union of India / Appellant be directed to conduct comprehensive enquiry in view of the contrary record / certificates furnished by Chief Registrar, Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”) and Chief Registrar, Punjab in respect of the Death Certificate of one Smt. Nihal Kaur.

7. The learned Single Judge considering the submissions of the parties disposed of the said writ petition by means of order dated 16.10.2025 directing the Registrar General of India to conduct an enquiry in the matter and make an endeavour to resolve the dichotomy between the Death Certificates issued by the Chief Registrar, GNCTD and Chief Registrar, Punjab.

8. A petition seeking Review of the order dated 16.10.2025 was filed by the Appellant which has been dismissed by the Impugned Order. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the Review Petition has discussed the scope of the powers vested in the Registrar General under Section 3 of the Act and has concluded that under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, the Registrar General of India has been charged with the duty of maintenance of data base of registered births and deaths at the national level and in case any conflict / inconsistency in the data received by the Registrar General of India from the concerned authorities / Registrars of different states is noticed, the Registrar General is not precluded from examining the matter and making an attempt to resolve such inconsistency.

9. The learned Single Judge has further observed in the Impugned Order that such steps may be taken by the Registrar General of India to maintain integrity and reliability of the database. The learned Single Judge has also while issuing such directions, observed that the exercise as directed by the order under challenge shall not preclude the Registrar General of India from relegating any unresolved issue / discrepancy to appropriate civil / judicial proceedings for adjudication.

10. Impeaching the Impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has emphasized that the Act was amended vide Registration of Birth and Death (Amendment) Act, 2023 which came into force with effect from 01.10.2023. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that it is only when the 2023 amendment was brought into force that the Registrar General was cast a duty to take steps not only to