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) 42296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Vasantha – Appellant
Versus
Birth and Death Registration Officer – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Chandrapandi
For the Respondents: D. S. Nedunchezhian

An authority under the Birth and Death Registration rules is empowered to rectify entries in a death certificate upon verification and enquiry, provided there are no rival claims to the contrary.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case involves the application of Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, which empowers authorities to rectify entries in death certificates. Facts of the Case: The petitioner sought a correction of the recorded father’s name of the deceased in a death certificate. Despite a representation, no action was taken by the respondent.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that in the absence of rival claims, the authority has the power to rectify errors following an enquiry or field inspection.

Issues: Whether the authority is empowered to rectify mistakes in a death certificate under the relevant rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, the respondent has the jurisdiction to verify claims and correct clerical errors upon enquiry to ensure accurate documentation.

Result: The Writ Petition is disposed of with directions for the respondent to conduct an enquiry and complete the correction process within three months.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeking correction of factual errors in a death certificate registration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs authority to rectify errors via enquiry under statutory rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

ORDER

The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner's aunt, by name, Veeramani, died on 01.09.2022. In Death Registration No. D-2023:33-13197-000033, the particulars relating to her father's name, it is mentioned as Rathinavel Nayakkar, while the correct name is Appaiya Nayakkar. The petitioner has already made an application dated 30.03.2026. In respect thereof, the same was not considered and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The learned Government Advocate, taking notice on behalf of the respondent, would submit that unless an enquiry is made by the revenue authorities, the decision cannot be made by the respondent.

3. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

4. In this case, it is stated that there is no rival claim. In that regard, the respondent, either by himself or by requesting the revenue authority to conduct a field inspection, can come to the conclusion as to the correctness or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner can also file such other proof with reference to the name of the father of the dead person. Upon considering the same, if it is found that the entry is erroneous, the respondent has power under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, to correct the mistake. Therefore, let the enquiry be conducted and the error, if any, be corrected as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of a web copy of the order.

5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 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