The Bombay High Court at Goa has dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a disputed birth registration, ruling that a birth registered more than one year after the date of occurrence can be authorised only by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.
Justice Valmiki Menezes upheld the December 13, 2023 order of the Corporation of the City of Panaji, which had cancelled the disputed 1999 birth registration of Savio Jose Xavier Viegas.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The Court noted that under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, delayed registration of a birth beyond one year requires an order from a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. The Court held that an order issued by an Executive Magistrate or Mamlatdar could not meet this statutory requirement.
The case involved two conflicting birth records. An earlier registration from 1983 recorded Rosy Fernandes Correia as the mother and listed the father as “unknown,” a record the petitioner disputed.
A second entry was made in November 1999, recording June 11, 1975, as the petitioner’s date of birth and naming Antonio Joazinho de Piedade Viegas and Eigenia Sabina Blanche Viegas as his parents. The High Court found that this delayed registration was based on an alleged Mamlatdar’s order rather than the judicial authorisation mandated by law.
The Court also pointed to several discrepancies surrounding the 1999 entry. These included the absence of the alleged Mamlatdar’s order from official records, the lack of the Registrar’s signature on the entry and unverified claims concerning the petitioner’s family details.
The Court further rejected the petitioner’s contention that his 1997 passport had been issued on the basis of the 1999 birth registration. It observed that the passport was issued two years before the disputed registration and carried a different name for the father.
Criminal proceedings relating to allegations of fraud are still pending. However, the High Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on criminal liability, leaving those issues to be decided by the trial court.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with the High Court upholding the cancellation of the disputed birth registration.
