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) 37693

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Sengolraj – Appellant
Versus
Chief Registrar of Birth and Deaths – Respondent
W.M.P(MD)No.9105 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Shriram
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

Authorities must process delayed birth registration applications for pre-1969 births despite Act's 1969 commencement.

Headnote:The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 governs delayed birth registrations. Petitioner, born in 1964 prior to the Act's enforcement, sought registration which was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer on grounds of the Act's 1969 commencement. Court found rejection unsustainable, relying on precedent affirming authority for pre-Act births. Issues framed as competency of authorities for pre-1969 birth registrations. Ratio: Competent authority must process applications for pre-Act births with supporting documents. Writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remanded for fresh consideration within three months.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's pre-1969 birth registration rejected improperly. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. precedent affirms authority for pre-act birth registrations. (Para 4)
3. order quashed, remanded for fresh consideration. (Para 5)

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

30.01.2026.

2.By the said order, the request made by the petitioner to register his birth was rejected.

3.The petitioner was born on 13.11.1964 and it is stated that his birth was not registered at that time. When the petitioner has now made an application before the third respondent, who is the competent authority, the same was rejected on the ground that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act came into force only in the year 1969. Therefore, such rejection cannot be sustained.

4.The issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the judgment of this Court made in Selvaganesan Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and others [W.P(MD)No.27684 of 2025, dated 08.10.2025] wherein it has already been held that even with reference to persons born prior to the coming into force of the Act, the third respondent would be the competent authority.

5.In view thereof, the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted and the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:

i. The impugned order dated 30.01.2026 shall stand set aside and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the third respondent.

ii. The third respondent shall consider the application on its own merits, along with the the proof and documents submitted by the petitioner, in the manner known to law and pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

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