SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Chandra – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. – Respondent
Writ Petition|O .Mu.A6/6342/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R.Mohanasundaram
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

Authorities under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 can issue birth certificates if adequate proof is provided, even for dates predating the Act's enforcement.

Headnote:Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked in a writ petition challenging an order denying a birth certificate based on a date prior to the applicable legislation. The court analyzed a previous judgment stating that the authorities have jurisdiction to issue the certificate with sufficient proof from the petitioner. The court ordered the impugned order set aside and remanded for fresh consideration within four months.

Table of Content
1. challenging denial of birth certificate. (Para 1 , 2)
2. jurisdiction and requirements for issuance. (Para 3)
3. court's decision to remand for reconsideration. (Para 4)

O R D E R

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

31.05.2023.

2. Upon considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, an application for issuance of Birth Certificate of the petitioner was made to the respondents, since the date of birth as claimed was 15.06.1966. The same is now rejected by the respondents on the ground that the same is prior to the coming into force of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

3. The matter is no longer res integra and is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.15053 of 2024 dated 08.07.2024 in the case of Pandiammal vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, wherein it has been held that since the present respondents are only the authority under the Act, which continues the earlier repealed legislation, they will have the jurisdiction to issue birth certificate. However, it will be subject to the petitioner providing proof, such as horoscope, affidavits of relatives and other friends, who have personal knowledge, etc., based on which the exercise will be undertaken.

4. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:

(a) The impugned order, dated 31.05.2023 shall stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the first respondent for fresh consideration as per the observations made in Pandiammal’s case (cited supra).

(b)The fresh exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4)

months from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy of the order.

(c)No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top