SDM Alone Can Pass Order For Death Certificate Issuance Under Registration Of Birth & Death Act If Registration Is Delayed: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction regarding the issuance of a Death Certificate of his first wife.
Justice Atul Sreedharan, Justice Vivek Saran, Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that under the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969, the Sub Divisional Magistrate alone can pass an order for the issuance of a death certificate if the registration of death has not been done within a year. The High Court also held that in the absence of evidence of death, any direction to the Registrar straight away would amount to extinguishing the existence of a person.
The High Court was considering a petition seeking issuance of an order commanding the Registrar (Birth-Death), Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, to issue a Death Certificate of the first wife of the petitioner, who died in 2001.
The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran held, “Thus under 9(3) of the Rules it is mandatory for a person to obtain an order from the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for issuance of death certificate, if the registration of death has not been done within a year and thereafter on completion of other requisite formalities.”
“With regards to the death certificate dated 17.03.2025 issued by Raj Kumar Yadav, Parshad, Ward No.65, Purana Ram Nagar, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi certifying death of Madhuri Srivastava on 25.01.2001 or a self declaration of the petitioner dated 17.03.2025 both are of no consequence. Under the Act it is the Sub Divisional Magistrate alone who is empowered to pass an order and admittedly, the petitioner does not have an order from the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for issuance of a death certificate of Late Madhuri Srivastava.”
Factual Background
The petitioner was married to one Madhuri Srivastava in the year 1962, who, according to the petitioner, left him in the year 1962 itself. The petitioner filed a divorce suit in the year 1970, which was rejected, and the appeal so preferred was dismissed in the year 1974. However, as per the order of the Court, the petitioner gave his half salary to Madhuri for a few years, and he took voluntary retirement on May 5, 1985, from the post of Squadron Leader, Indian Air Force. The petitioner stated that Madhuri died in the year 2001 while residing at her parents’ house.
The petitioner married again in the year 2001. However, the name of the second wife could not be entered into the service records. In the year 2011, the petitioner applied for the deletion of the name of his first wife and for the substitution of his second wife as his legally wedded wife. Thereafter, the petitioner, while filling out the form on attaining 80 years, disclosed the name of his second wife as the name of his spouse. A letter came to be issued by the Directorate of Air Veterans, Air HQ (SP), New Delhi, requiring the petitioner to furnish the details of the family, which included a copy of the marriage certificate and death certificate or a decision of the Court granting divorce.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that a death certificate is issued under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act in case of delayed registration of births and deaths. It further explained that the State Government, in exercise of power under Section 13 have framed the Rules, and Rule 9 (3) provides that in case of any registration of death beyond the period of one year, the same shall be carried out on the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and payment of a late fee of Rs 10.
The Bench stated that under 9(3) of the Rules, it is mandatory for a person to obtain an order from the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for the issuance of death certificate, if the registration of death has not been done within a year.
Considering the non-disclosure of the outcome of the request for issuance of the death certificate before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Bench held that the only presumption was that there was no order from the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for issuance of a death certificate of the petitioner’s first wife. “Under such circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner as on date does not fulfil the statutory requirement for issuance of death certificate of late Madhuri Srivastava”, it added.
The Bench made it clear that it is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alone who is empowered to pass an order. Considering that the petitioner had approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned under Section 13, the Bench stated that any direction straight away to the Registrar for the issuance of a death certificate of the first wife would amount to circumventing the statutory requirement, which would defeat the purpose of the Act in procuring relevant documents of the death of the first wife.
Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench held, “As noted above, the petitioner has taken recourse to the statutory provision by moving application before the concerned Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which he may continue to pursue.”
Cause Title: Naval Kishore Srivastava v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:112844-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Respondent: Advocate Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Chief Standing Counsel, Advocate Vineet Sankalp