The Allahabad High Court has refused to direct the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi to issue a death certificate merely on the basis of a councilor’s certification or a self-declaration, observing that statutory procedure under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act cannot be bypassed.
Dismissing the petition, the Court said,
“…. any direction straight away to the Registrar for issuance of death certificate… would be amounting to circumventing the statutory requirement,” and further cautioned that, “in absence of any evidence of death… any direction to the Registrar straight away would be amounting to extinguishing the existence of a person.”
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran in a writ petition filed by Naval Kishore Srivastava against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
The petitioner had sought a mandamus directing the Registrar (Birth-Death), Nagar Nigam, Varanasi to issue the death certificate of his first wife, late Madhuri Srivastava, who, according to him, died on January 25, 2001 at Old Ram Nagar, Varanasi.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-grants-bail-ganga-video-case/
As per the case set up by the petitioner, he was married to Madhuri Srivastava in 1962, but she allegedly left him the same year and never returned.
Though the petitioner had instituted divorce proceedings in 1970, the suit as well as the appeal were dismissed.
He stated that despite living separately, he paid half of his salary to Madhuri Srivastava between 1975 and 1985 pursuant to court orders while serving as a Squadron Leader in the Indian Air Force and took voluntary retirement on 05.05.1985.
The petitioner further claimed that after Madhuri Srivastava’s death in 2001, he married Meera Srivastava (second wife) the same year.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-maintenance-under-crpc-is-a-right-not-charity/
However, since the death certificate of his first wife was unavailable, the name of his second wife could not be entered in official service and pension records.
The issue resurfaced when Directorate of Air Veterans, Air HQ (SP), New Delhi sought proof of death, a divorce decree, and marriage documents while updating pension records after the petitioner attained the age of 80 years.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had no contact with his first wife or their son for decades and therefore could not procure any formal proof of death.
It was submitted that attempts to obtain hospital records from Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Varanasi also failed.
Eventually, the petitioner obtained a certificate dated March 17, 2025 from the local councilor of Ward No. 65, Purana Ram Nagar, certifying Madhuri Srivastava’s death on January 25, 2001.
Opposing the plea, the State authorities and Nagar Nigam contended that delayed registration of death is governed strictly by Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and the Uttar Pradesh Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2002.
They argued that where a death remains unregistered for more than one year, registration can be made only pursuant to an order passed by the competent Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
After examining the statutory provisions, the High Court agreed with the authorities and found that Rule 9(3) of the 2002 Rules specifically mandates an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for registration of death certificate after one year of occurrence.
The Bench observed that although the petitioner himself admitted having approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi, he failed to disclose the outcome of those proceedings.
The Court also found that the petitioner had not clarified whether he supplied the additional documents sought by the Zonal Officer, Ram Nagar Zone, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, in response to his application for issuance of a death certificate.
Significantly, the Bench held that neither the councilor’s certificate nor the petitioner’s self-declaration carried any legal sanctity under the statutory scheme.
The Court further remarked that personal inconvenience or difficulty faced by the petitioner could not become a “ground for bypassing the statutory remedy.”
Referring to an earlier order of the Supreme Court dated September 22, 2025, the Bench noted that liberty had already been granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.
Holding that the petitioner had failed to fulfill the mandatory statutory requirements for delayed registration of death, the Court concluded that the writ petition was misconceived and dismissed it, while leaving it open for the petitioner to continue pursuing remedies before the competent Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
Case: Naval Kishore Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 6 others
Case No: Writ – C No. – 13812 of 2026
Date of Order: 15.05.2026
Status: Dismissed
