Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 22730
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
MRS SARASWATHI S P – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 26850 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B.
For the Respondents: SRI. K.V. MOHAN KUMAR.
Procedural requirements must not obstruct justice, particularly in cases where essential documentation is warranted but cannot be produced due to extraordinary circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Issuance of death certificate - Petitioner sought to quash endorsement denying issuance of death certificate for husband washed away in stormwater drain - Respondents argued need for medical certificate as per Rules - Court found insistence on such certificate unjust, noting compensation acceptance indicated acknowledgment of death - Procedure must yield to justice, especially in absence of body. (Paras 2, 14, 18, 20)
(B) Court emphasized that administrative procedures should not obstruct rightful claims, and highlighted relevance of humanitarian considerations in issuing vital records. (Paras 1, 14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner's husband, employed with Municipal authority, went missing due to flood incident. Compensation was paid, but a death certificate was refused based on procedural grounds concerning the absence of a body.
Findings of Court:
The insistence on procedure without body available was deemed unsustainable; failure to issue death certificate denied the petitioner her rights over six years.
Issues: The primary issue was whether procedural requirements justified the refusal to issue a death certificate in the absence of a body.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that adherence to justice must take precedence over strict procedural norms when substantial injustice is evident; thus, the issuance of the death certificate was mandated.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; endorsement quashed and death certificate ordered to be issued within 30 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. formal conclusion directing issuance of death certificate. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the criteria for issuing a death certificate. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. overview of relevant forms and procedural requirements. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. injustice in strict adherence to procedural norms. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. civil consequences of not issuing a death certificate. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 6. court's dismissal of respondent's apprehensions. (Para 18 , 20) |
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order/s by quashing the endorsement dated 06.01.2018 issued by the Respondent No.3 Health Officer, Mahalakshimpuram Region, BBMP produced at Annexure-A and allow this petition directing the Respondent No.3 to register and issue the Death Certificate of petitioner’s husband Mr.Shanthakumar S/o Mr. Siddappa.
b. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner’s husband, an excavator operator with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), was washed away in heavy rain while working in a stormwater drain on 20.05.2017. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) of BBMP had ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs which was paid to the petitioner. An FIR in Crime No.178/2017 was registered with Mahalakshmipuram Police Station. Mahalakshmipuram Police Station have on 27.03.2018, issued an endorsement that the body of the husband of the petitioner was not found. The petitioner, having been requesting for issuance of a death certificate in respect of her husband, the said death certificate not having been issued, is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Sri.B.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the death of the husband of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent authorities themselves by making payment of compensation amount and there being extensive news coverage as regards the incident both in English and Kannada newspapers and the body of the husband of the petitioner having been washed away in stormwater drain and not having been found, the respondent ought to have acted and issued the death certificate.
4. Sri.K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for BBMP would submit that there is a procedure which is required to be followed for the purpose of issuance of death certificate inasmuch as in terms of Rule 7 of Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 (for short, ‘Rules’), a certificate as to cause of death is required to be issued under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Rules in Form No.4 where the death occurs in hospitals and in Form No.4A in case of death occurring in other places. It is only on that basis that an application for the issuance of a death certificate can be considered. No body has been found if the husband were to return alive, the death certificate would be false. He submits that since no such certificate has been produced by the petitioner, the respondent is unable to issue a certificate.
5. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable to obtain such death certificate since there is no body which is available for a medical practitioner to examine the body and issue a certificate. On this ground, he submits that the respondent ought to issue a death certificate.
6. Heard Sri.B.Keshava Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for BBMP and perused the papers.
7. The death report is required to be submitted in Form
2. The said report reads as under:-
| FORM NO.2 DEATH REPORT (See Rule 5) Legal information This part to be added to the Death Register | DEATH REPORT Statistical information This part to be detached and sent for statistical processing | ||||||
| 5 To be filled by the informant 1. Date of Death : (Enter the e | |||||||
