Mandatory Magistrate Order required for birth or death registration delayed beyond one year.

The petitioner, a retired Squadron Leader of the Indian Air Force, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Registrar (Birth-Death), Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, to issue a death certificate for his first wife, Madhuri Srivastava.

The petitioner claimed they married in 1962 but separated that same year and alleged she died on January 25, 2001, at her parental home.

For pensionary purposes—specifically to substitute his second wife’s name in service records—the petitioner required a formal death certificate.

He attempted to obtain records from hospitals and the local Councilor (Parshad), who issued an informal certificate in March 2025.

Despite applying to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) on March 17, 2025, the petitioner failed to show the outcome of those proceedings and instead approached the High Court.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the registration of a death that occurred over 24 years ago without following the statutory procedure under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

2. Whether an informal certificate issued by a local Councilor or a self-declaration by a relative constitutes sufficient proof for the mandatory registration of a delayed death.

Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 mandates that any death not registered within one year of its occurrence can only be registered upon an order made by a Magistrate of the first class after verifying the correctness of the event.

Rule 9(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2002 designates the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) as the competent authority to pass such an order for deaths occurring beyond one year, subject to a prescribed late fee.

The petitioner had failed to satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements of the 1969 Act and the 2002 Rules as the SDM must verify the factual correctness of the death before ordering registration.

The Court observed that the petitioner had already moved an application before the SDM, Sadar, Varanasi, but had not disclosed its outcome; therefore, no order from the competent authority existed.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on a certificate from a local Councilor (Parshad) or a self-declaration, holding they were "of no consequence" as the law exclusively empowers the Magistrate to authorize delayed registration.

Bypassing this procedure via a writ would be legally improper as it would amount to "extinguishing the existence of a person" without proper evidentiary verification.

The Court dismissed the petition as misconceived and refused to issue a mandamus, directing the petitioner to continue pursuing his application before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate rather than circumventing the law.