Published Aug 01, 2026 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Aug 01, 2026 | 7:00 AM
Wrapped tightly in a blanket, a newborn girl sleeps. (Representational image)
Synopsis: Parliament has proposed another overhaul of delayed birth and death registration, partly reversing the 2023 amendment by bringing back judicial scrutiny for registrations delayed beyond two years. An analysis of the 1969 Act, the 2023 amendment and the 2026 Bill, alongside the latest Civil Registration System (CRS) report, shows that while India has achieved near-universal registration (99.1% births, 99.4% deaths), the bigger challenge remains timely reporting within 21 days and weak enforcement by states.
More than five decades after Parliament enacted the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the Centre has returned to the law for the second time in less than three years.
Introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 29 by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2026 proposes a single but significant change: births and deaths reported more than two years after they occur will require an order from a Judicial Magistrate First Class before they can be registered.
The amendment follows the sweeping overhaul of the law in 2023, when Parliament introduced digital registration, created national and state databases, and made birth certificates the primary proof of date and place of birth for people born on or after October 1, 2023.
Yet the government’s own Vital Statistics of India based on the Civil Registration System (CRS), 2024 paints an interesting picture. India has already achieved near-universal registration of births and deaths. The larger gap lies elsewhere — ensuring those events are reported within the prescribed 21-day period and making better use of the enforcement powers already available under the law.
The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, laid the foundation for compulsory registration across the country.
Section 8 requires births and deaths to be reported within the period prescribed under the Rules. The Registration of Births and Deaths Rules fix that period at 21 days. Births and deaths reported within that period are registered free of cost, while reports made after 21 days but within 30 days attract a late fee.
The Act established a graded system for delayed registration. Births and deaths reported after 30 days but within one year required written permission from the prescribed authority along with an affidavit. Registrations made after one year required an order from a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verification of the facts. It also empowered authorities to penalise contraventions, with fines originally capped at ₹50.
The 2023 amendment retained the graded approach but simplified the process. It replaced affidavits with self-attested documents for registrations made between 30 days and one year. More significantly, it shifted authority for registrations delayed beyond one year from Judicial Magistrates to the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or an authorised Executive Magistrate, making delayed registration an executive rather than judicial process.
That framework remained largely unchanged for more than five decades.
Parliament substantially revised the law in 2023, shifting India’s civil registration system from paper records to a digital platform.
The amendment created a national database under the Registrar General of India along with corresponding state databases. It also enabled these records to be shared with authorities maintaining Aadhaar, electoral rolls, passports, ration cards, driving licences and other government databases notified by the Centre.
Perhaps the biggest legal change concerned birth certificates. For people born on or after October 1, 2023, a birth certificate became the primary proof of date and place of birth for school admissions, government appointments, preparation of electoral rolls, passports and other notified services.
The amendment also simplified parts of the delayed registration process. Registrations made between 30 days and one year no longer required affidavits, allowing self-attested documents instead. It shifted authority for registrations delayed beyond one year from a Judicial Magistrate to the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate. Penalties for institutions and officials failing to report births and deaths also increased sharply, from ₹50 to ₹1,000 per event.
Explaining the rationale behind the overhaul, Registrar General of India Mritunjay Kumar Narayan wrote in the preface to the CRS report that the amendment was introduced “to accommodate changes and new developments in the society during the last five decades.”
He added that he hoped “more dynamic implementation of the provisions of the RBD Act, 1969 (amended in 2023) shall help reduce the time gap and establish this as a reliable source of information on Birth and Death registration in the country.”
The proposed amendment partly reverses that change. Instead of all registrations delayed beyond one year being handled by executive authorities, it splits the category into two. Registrations delayed between one and two years will continue to be approved by the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or an authorised Executive Magistrate. However, registrations delayed by more than two years will once again require an order from a Judicial Magistrate First Class after verification of the facts.
According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the proposal follows consultations with States and Union Territories after the 2023 amendment came into force and aims to make delayed registration “more stringent” in order to encourage timely reporting.
Also Read: South India powers India’s organ transplants, but demand still far outstrips supply: Lancet study
The latest CRS report provides an opportunity to assess whether delayed registration is the system’s biggest weakness.
The data suggests otherwise.
India registered 2.55 crore births and 89.38 lakh deaths in 2024. Birth registration reached 99.1% of estimated births, while death registration reached 99.4% of estimated deaths. Eighteen States and Union Territories achieved 100% birth registration, while twenty-one recorded complete death registration.
Taken together, the figures suggest India has largely solved the problem of eventual registration. Almost every birth and death now enters the civil registration system.
The challenge shifts when the focus moves from coverage to timeliness.
Although registration is nearly universal, reporting within the prescribed 21-day period remains uneven.
Only 13 States and Union Territories registered more than 90% of births within 21 days. Andhra Pradesh and Odisha fell in the 80-90% category, while Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and several others remained between 50% and 80%. Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Ladakh registered half or fewer births within the prescribed period.
Death registration shows an even wider gap. Only seven States and Union Territories crossed the 90% mark for registrations within 21 days. Eleven fell between 80% and 90%, while Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland registered half or fewer deaths within the prescribed reporting period.
The report therefore points to a system that succeeds in eventually recording births and deaths but struggles to record many of them promptly.
Also Read: What is ICMR-NIN’s ‘dual-axis’ food classification, and what could it mean for India’s food labels?
The CRS report also raises questions about enforcement.
Section 23 of the Act empowers authorities to penalise people and institutions that fail to report births and deaths or furnish false information. Yet the report notes:
“Despite the aforesaid provision, most of the State Governments are not imposing penalties on the defaulters.”
Twenty-eight States and Union Territories reported nil penalties during 2024, while Bihar did not furnish any information.
Where states did impose penalties, the amounts remained modest. Rajasthan collected more than ₹7 lakh across 2,550 cases, while Tamil Nadu imposed penalties in 15 cases, collecting less than ₹10,000.
States also explained why penalties remained rare. Karnataka and Gujarat said they preferred counselling over punitive action, while Haryana said online registration through its CRS portal had largely removed the need for penalties.
Oversight appears similarly uneven. Although Section 18 empowers registrars to inspect registration offices and records, most States and Union Territories did not furnish inspection figures for 2024.
Read together, the 1969 Act, the 2023 amendment and the proposed 2026 amendment trace the evolution of India’s civil registration framework.
The original law established compulsory registration. The 2023 amendment modernised the system through digital records, interoperable databases and stronger legal recognition for birth certificates. The 2026 Bill returns to one specific issue—making registrations delayed beyond two years subject to judicial scrutiny.
The government’s own data, however, suggests the next challenge is no longer getting births and deaths into the registration system. With 99.1% of births and 99.4% of deaths already registered, the bigger task is ensuring those events are reported within the prescribed 21-day period and that states consistently use the penalties, inspections and other enforcement tools the law already provides.
Whether the latest amendment improves the system will ultimately depend not only on stricter scrutiny of registrations delayed beyond two years, but also on how effectively the existing law is implemented on the ground.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
