Rakhee Dutt vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to forthwith consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application dated 2^nd April, 2026 for registration and recording of birth. The petitioner claims that the petitioner was born on 16^th December, 1977 at Lake View Nursing Home, 16/2 Lake View Road, Kolkata 700029. It is the petitioner’s case that due to inadvertence, the factum of the birth of the petitioner was not registered with the then Calcutta Municipal Corporation within the ordinary prescribed period. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession of unimpeachable documentary evidence establishing her date and place of birth. In support of her claim, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the certificate of birth issued by the Lake View Nursing Home, the copy of the Madhyamik certificate issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Adhar Card, PAN Card issued by the income tax authorities and the voter identity card. Originals of the aforesaid documents have also been produced.

It is the petitioner’s case that on 2^nd April, 2026, the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation before the Municipal Commissioner and Executive Health Officer, Borough VIII, KMC seeking recording of her birth and for issuance of a birth certificate. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding receipt of such representation, the petitioner’s case has been kept pending. In the peculiar facts, the petitioner has approached this Court.

When the matter was first moved on 1^st August, 2026, this Court having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, had directed the municipality to file a report in the matter. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, though the report was due to be filed on or before the matter was taken up next, however, on 19^th August, 2026 since an accommodation was sought for on behalf of the municipality, the time to file the report was extended till the next date. On the following date, i.e., on 20^th August, 2026, the municipality had filed a report duly counter signed by the sub-registrar, Health Department, KMC dated 19^th August, 2026. In the said report, it was the municipality’s primary contention that in terms of Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), for a delayed registration of birth after one year from the date of occurring of such an event, ordinarily, an order is to be made by the Magistrate of the 1^st Class, after verifying the correctness of the birth and death and on payment of prescribed fees that the factum of birth event can be recorded. In the instant case, since no affidavit was also sworn before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, as such, in absence of such affidavit, the municipal authorities cannot proceed and no order can be passed on the basis of the petitioner’s application. It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the municipal authorities do not possess any autonomous statutory power or administrative discretion or residual jurisdiction to unilaterally register a birth after a lapse of the ordinary prescribed period. It was further highlighted that the voter identity card and PAN card as produced by the petitioner cannot be treated as conclusive proof of birth. According to the report, these documents are secondary identity documents issued decades later and the same are unverified.

It is in the peculiar facts this Court taking note of the objection raised by the municipal authorities and by an order dated 20^th August, 2026, had directed the petitioner to produce additional documents. Leave was also granted to the State to file a report. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has since filed an affidavit in original affirmed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class confirming the factum of date of birth on 16^th December, 1977 and also disclosing therein the following documents.

Such documents have also been enclosed to the affidavit.

The learned Additional Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the KMC and would submit that in the light of the above disclosure, the municipality does not contest the genuinity of the documents which have been produced in Court.

The State is also represented. The State also does not raise any objection as regards the genuinity of the documents either.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the said Act has made provisions for delayed registration of births and deaths. Though, ordinarily the factum of birth or death is required to be registered within a period of 30 days from its occurrence, however, the provisions of Section 13(2) of the said Act makes it abundantly clear that a delayed information may be given, to the registrar the event beyond 30 days, however, within one year from the date of occurrence. Provision has also been made for recording the factum or the event of birth beyond one year as well. A perusal of the Section 13 sub-Section (3) of the said Act provides any birth and death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on the order of the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where the birth or death has taken place, after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. In the instant case, I find that an affidavit has duly been affirmed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class at Alipore. The learned Judicial Magistrate in the affidavit has recorded that the affidavit has been solemnly affirmed before him on 21^st August, 2026. Let the aforesaid affidavit as placed before this Court in original be taken on record. In the peculiar facts there being no challenge as regards either the identity of the petitioner or with regard to the documents disclosed and the factum of birth of the petitioner having been established on the basis of the documents disclosed and the affidavit, including the contemporaneous birth certificate issued by the Lake View Nursing Home, I am of the view that the municipal authorities/concerned sub-registrar be directed to dispose of the petitioner’s representation by registering the factum of birth and consequentially recording the name of the child in terms of Section 14 of the said Act in the regsiter. The factum of registration should also be notified to the petitioner by issuing an appropriate certificate.

It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.