Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 30897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA R WRIT PETITION No.15800 OF 2022 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SUDARSHAN V. BIRADAR (PRESIDENT CHINCHOLI BAR ASSOCIATION) AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O VEERASHETTY HAVING OFFICE AT R/AT: NEAR AATREYA CLINIC MAIN ROAD, CHINCHOLI TALUK KALABURGI – 585 307. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PLANNING PROGRAMME MONITORING AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . UNION OF INDIA BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL INDIA V.S.DIVISION WEST BLOCK-I R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI – 110 066. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD.18.7.2022 BEARING NO.ODS 66 SSM 2022 INTRODUCING KARNATAKA REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (AMENDMENT) RULES 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY R-2 AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.04.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
The amendment to the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules transferring powers from Magistrates to administrative officials contravenes the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, thus deemed ultra vires.
Headnote:(A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Sections 13 and 30 - Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 - Amendment made on 18.07.2022 transferring judicial power from Magistrates to Assistant Commissioners deemed ultra vires as it contradicts the parent Act establishing the judicial nature of authority. (Paras 8, 10, 12, 15).
(B) Delegated Legislation - Rule-making authority cannot exceed powers conferred by the parent statute; amendment must conform strictly to legislative intent as established in Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 11, 14, 15).
(C) The scheme of delegated legislation is to supplement, not to supplant the provisions of the enabling Act, any provision inconsistent with the Act is void. (Paras 14, 15).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the amendment of Rule 9 that shifted the power to validate delayed registrations from Magistrates to Assistant Commissioners, claiming it was unconstitutional and ultra vires the Act.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the amendment null and void as it undermined the judicial authority outlined in the Act.
Issues: Whether the amendment to Rule 9 was ultra vires the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment infringed upon judicial powers reserved for Magistrates and violated provisions of the Act, rendering it ultra vires and illegal.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; notification obliterated.
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notification dated 18.07.2022 issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (‘the Act’ for short) contending that the amendment is ultra vires the Act.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, necessary for the resolution in the lis , are as follows:
The petitioner is a practicing Advocate enrolled in the Karnataka State Bar Council. The Government of India promulgates the registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and permits the State Governments to bring in Rules in furtherance of the Act with the prior approval of the State Government. In terms of Section 30 of the Act, Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970 was promulgated. The Rules of 1970 comes to be repealed by 1999 Rules. Therefore, the Rules with the corresponding Act which was and is holding the field is of 1999.
3. On 18.07.2022, the Government of Karnataka brings in an amendment to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1999 substituting the words ‘a Magistrate of First Class or a Presidency Magistrate’ to that of an ‘Assistant Commissioner (Sub-Divisional Magistrate)’. Protest erupted on this amendment contending that a power that was given to the judiciary is taken away and laid at the hands of the Revenue Authorities. Representation is also submitted to the Government by the Karnataka State Bar Council seeking deletion of the amendment or withdrawal of the amendment. Reasons were indicated in the representation as to why the amendment was unworkable. When the State did not heed to the representation of the Karnataka State Bar Council, an Advocate has presented the subject petition contending that the amendment Act runs counter to the parent Act and is therefore, ultra vires the parent Act and to be quashed on account of it being unconstitutional.
4. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. P.P.Hegde, appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.3.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the amendment to Rule 9 of the year 1999 Rules is beyond what is empowered to the State Government to make. Section 30 of the Act clearly empowers the Government to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Several purposes are enumerated. He would by taking this Court through the amendment contend that the amendment is beyond the Rule making power and therefore, requires to be obliterated.
6. On the other hand, the learned DSGI Sri Shanthi Bhushan would tacitly toe the lines of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to contend that the Rule cannot take away the judicial power that was given under sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the 1999 Rules and place it at the mercy of the bureaucrats.
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate would seek to justify the amendment contending that they have only followed every other State Government who have given the power to the Revenue Authorities in cases where the births and deaths are registered after a long delay and therefore, the State Government has brought in this amendment to be in tune with every other State.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and other respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the issue that falls for my consideration is:
“ Whether the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Rules, 2022 amending Rule 9 of the Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 is ultra vires the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969?”
9. To consider and answer the said issue, it is necessary to notice the provisions of law that are germane, i.e., the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 and the impugned amendment.
Section 13
