SHILLONG: A whopping 58,716 birth certificates and 2115 death certificates were issued from 01/01/2010 to 22/09/2015 by different registrars of births and deaths under East Khasi Hills on the basis of court order.
This was revealed by the District Medical and Health Officer cum District Registrar Births and Deaths, East Khasi Hills in her reply to an RTI by a law student, Aneeta Synrem of Polo Hills.
In fact this is just one of the three RTIs filed by Synrem in various state government departments and she found that different registrar of births and deaths in the district insists for a court order for birth/death certificates when approached after one year of the birth or death.
On the basis of these findings she had filed a PIL in the High Court of Meghalaya in greater public interest on the pathetic condition of registration of births and deaths in the district.
“One can only imagine the amount of money being spent by the applicants to procure an affidavit signed by a first class magistrate in order to avail their birth and death certificates,” she said.
During the maiden hearing on the PIL on March 15, Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice SR Sen in the order said the issues raised in this petition filed are of harassment and prejudice suffered by the citizens for the purpose of obtaining the certificate for birth or death, particularly because of the omissions on the part of the hospital, health centre, maternity or nursing home or similar institutions in extending the requisite information to the registrar concerned within time, which results in the applicant being driven to seek order from the court or authentication from other persons/bodies unnecessarily.
The PIL will be heard after four weeks following the state government counsel seeking time to complete their instructions.
As per the RTI reply, applicants were forced to procure these court orders by various registrars of births and deaths even in cases of hospitals/health centres/ maternity homes and such other institutional births/deaths simply because of non-registration within the first one year.
According to the copies of the RTIs made available to this daily whenever any registration of birth and death aren’t done within the first year, the applicant has to source a court order to get the registration done.
The RTIs which Synrem filed on 22/09/2015 with the PIOs (Public Information Officers) of department of Law, District Medical and Health Officer and Shillong Municipal Board of the Government of Meghalaya have one reply in common, that is, each of them had admitted the fact that asking for court order is improper/illegal in case of hospital/institutional births and deaths where the information relating to such events is furnished in time to the registering authorities.
But in reality the registrars of births/deaths have been asking for court orders if the case goes beyond the one year timeframe discounting even the intimation certificate provided by the hospitals/institutions for registration of births/deaths and flouting all rules.
To a query on the mandatory timing for the hospitals/health centres/maternity homes and such other institutions to furnish the information relating to births/deaths to the registrars of births/deaths, Rule 5(3) of the Meghalaya Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2010 states that the information should be furnished within the first 21 days and once these information are registered it is illegal to ask for court orders even if an applicant approaches before or after one year.
Another anomaly that has come to light through the RTI is the failure on the part of hospitals/health centres/maternity homes and such other institutions to furnish reports of births and deaths to the registrar of births and deaths.
From 01/01/2010 to 22/09/2015, there have been six cases of deaths in hospitals which were not sent for registration whereas 39 cases of births in different hospitals had gone unreported forcing applicants to go for court orders.
There are three sub-registrars of births and deaths and 40 registrars of births and deaths under East Khasi Hills and there are opinions from many affected that the hospitals/ health centres/maternity homes and such other institutions should be taken to task for dereliction of their duties and harassment of the general public.
The lackadaisical attitude of the state government has also been flayed by those who are facing the brunt of such alleged “illegal practice”.
Interestingly, the reply of the Law department through the Health and Family Welfare department of the State Government to a query under what circumstances a court order is required for the delayed registration of births and deaths states that according to Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 9 of the Meghalaya Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2010 any birth or death whose information is given to the registrar after the expiry of the stipulated 21 days but within 30 days of its occurrence shall be registered on payment of late fee of Rs 2 only. Any birth or death whose delayed information is given to the registrar after 30 days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the district registrar and on payment of late fee of Rs 5 only and on production of an affidavit sworn in before a first class magistrate and any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on an order of a first class magistrate and on payment of late fee of Rs 10 only. However, there is no clarity if the information is not provided by hospitals / health centres / maternity homes and such other institutions to the registrars then who should be held responsible as pertinent questions are being raised that an applicant cannot be asked to procure court orders for gross negligence perpetrated by these hospitals and institutions.
Synrem had also appealed against the illegal practice of insisting for a court order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Department of Health and Family Welfare in her representation dated 08/12/2015 praying for passing necessary order directing all registrar of births and deaths not to insist for court orders from applicants when the information for such births and deaths were provided to the registering authorities in time.
However, the reply of the Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Health and Family Welfare is contrary to the concern raised by her. She was communicated an amended notification dated 22/01/2016 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary wherein it was stated the sub-rule (2) of the Meghalaya Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. The rule states that “Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after thirty days, sent within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only with the written permission of the District Registrar and on payment of a late fee of Rs 5/- and on production of an affidavit authenticated by the Notary Public or the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner or the Extra Assistant Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) of the concerned District or Subdivision”. The amended part of this rule is the addition of the officials who are empowered to sign authentication documents of applicants seeking birth / death certificate other than only a first class magistrate, as was the case earlier.
Armed with these documents, Synrem filed the PIL No. 1 of 2016 in the High Court of Meghalaya for the benefit of the general public who are deprived of their fundamental rights because of the “continuance of illegal and arbitrary practice in vogue in the matter of issuance of birth and death certificates in the state of Meghalaya and particularly in the East Khasi Hills district.”
She has submitted that birth certificate is required for proof of age, parentage, admission in educational institutions, governmental and non-governmental services, proof of domicile, claiming social security benefits, welfare and other public beneficiary schemes, obtaining passport, licenses et al whereas a death certificates is required for proof of death, closing bank accounts, settlement of insurance and other inheritance claims, pensions and a host of other purposes.
One of the most telling instances of her litigation is the condition of widows who, for want of death certificates of their deceased ones, are unable to claim the social welfare schemes of the government meant especially for them.
She has also pointed out that Section 8 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 cast some duties to persons, who are under the obligation to register births and deaths.
