Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969

7 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

REEPAK KANSALversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 31830 June 2021Disposed off

The petitioners sought mandatory ex gratia compensation for families of Covid‑19 victims under Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, arguing that the word "shall" imposes a duty on the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to prescribe uniform guidelines. The Union of India contended that "shall" sho

COMMITTEE FOR C.R. OF C.A.P. & ORS.versusSTATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2015 INSC 67217 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction to the Union of India to grant Indian citizenship to Chakma and Hajong refugees who migrated between 1964 and 1969 and have since settled in Arunachal Pradesh. The State of Arunachal Prade

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRASversusM. MANICKAM AND ORS.

2011 INSC 58617 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

M. Manickam, a District Munsif, claimed that his date of birth recorded in service records (19‑Mar‑1947) was incorrect and sought to have it changed to 24‑Nov‑1950 to extend his retirement. He filed an application for change in 1993, more than five years after his entry into service, and addressed it to the Registrar o

MANOJ @ MONU @ VISHAL CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

2022 INSC 18615 February 2022Dismissed

The appellant, Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary, was initially declared a juvenile in conflict with law but the High Court set aside that finding and ordered him to stand trial as an adult. He sought to prove his juvenility on the basis of a birth certificate, a school leaving certificate, an ossification test report, a

MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHANversusNAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN

2022 INSC 11787 November 2022Dismissed

The appellant, Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan, was elected to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 2017, but the election petitioner challenged his eligibility on the ground that he was under 25 years of age at the time of filing his nomination. The dispute centered on conflicting birth dates shown in two birth certific

MURUGAN @ SETTUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2011 INSC 3626 May 2011Dismissed

The appellants Murugan @ Settu (A1) and his accomplices A2 and A3 were convicted for kidnapping, compelling marriage and raping a girl, Shankari (PW‑4). The appellants contended that Shankari was an adult who voluntarily went with A1 and that the birth and school certificates were unreliable. The Supreme Court examined

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search