The High Court of Judicature at Patna has ruled that the registration of a missing person’s death cannot be completed without verification and an order from a competent magistrate under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. With this ruling, the Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking the issuance of a death certificate for her missing husband—a retired Indian Army employee—notwithstanding a confession made by an accused during the police investigation admitting to his murder.
The single-judge bench of Justice Partha Sarthy passed the order, finding no error in the decision of the civil authorities who had refused to issue the certificate in the absence of a judicial order.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Priyanka Kumari, a resident of Village-Karisath in Ara (Bhojpur), was married to Late Rajesh Kumar Yadav, a retired employee of the Indian Army who received a pension from the Government of India.
According to the petitioner, her husband went missing on May 4, 2024. Following his disappearance for approximately one week, a complaint was lodged with the police, which led to the registration of an First Information Report (FIR) designated as Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 193 of 2024 on May 12, 2024.
During the subsequent police investigation, one of the accused confessed to having murdered the petitioner’s husband. Armed with this confession, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a death certificate from the District Registrar of Vaishali. The petitioner sought the certificate urgently, contending that her husband’s pension had been stopped following his disappearance, which was her only source of income for survival.
The respondent authorities rejected her application. Subsequently, the Executive Officer of Nagar Parishad, Mahnar (Vaishali), in a communication dated August 14, 2025, addressed to the Nodal Officer, RTI, Vaishali, stated that the death certificate of a missing person is issued only after an order from a competent Court, in accordance with Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to issue the death certificate and to set aside the order dated August 14, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Kumar, argued that since an accused had confessed during the police investigation to committing the murder of the petitioner’s husband, the respondents should be directed to issue the death certificate.
No one appeared on behalf of the respondents during the hearing. However, the relevant statutory provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, were placed before the Court through the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the state respondents.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Partha Sarthy examined the material on record alongside the statutory framework of Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which governs the delayed registration of births and deaths.
The Court reproduced the statutory provision of Section 13(3) of the Act:
“13. Delayed registration of births and deaths. — …
(3) Any birth of death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or by an Executive Magistrate authorised by the District 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.”
Applying this statutory rule to the facts, the Court noted that the FIR regarding the disappearance of the petitioner’s husband was registered on May 12, 2024, after he went missing on May 4, 2024. More than two years had elapsed since his disappearance, and the death had neither been confirmed nor registered within the one-year period prescribed under the Act.
The Court observed:
“More than two years having passed since the disappearance of the petitioner’s husband and the death neither having been confirmed nor having been registered within one year, the Court finds no error in the decision of the respondents communicated to the petitioner that in light of section 13(3) of the Act, the death would be registered only on an order made by the Court after verifying the correctness of the death and on payment of the prescribed fee.”
Decision of the Court
Finding no merit in the writ petition and finding no error in the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities, the Patna High Court dismissed the application.
Case Details
- Case Title: Priyanka Kumari v. The State of Bihar through the Chief Registrar, Birth and Death Registration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Ors.
- Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19241 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Partha Sarthy
- Date: 14-05-2026
