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 The Rules of 1970 comes to be repealed by 1999 Rules.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 of