The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has intervened in a significant case concerning the cancellation of birth certificates by the Maharashtra government, directing the state to file a detailed reply and halting any punitive actions against affected citizens until further orders.
Court Halts Coercive Action, Demands State Explanation
Hearing a petition that challenges recent government resolutions, a division bench comprising Justice Anil S Kilor and Justice Rajnish R Vyas instructed the state to submit a comprehensive affidavit. The court explicitly ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners until the matter is properly heard. The state must file its reply by January 5, 2026.
Petitioners' Argument: Legal Provisions Ignored
The petitioners, including Jamil Ahmad Abdul Matin and others from Amravati district, argued through their counsels, senior advocate CS Kaptan and advocate Parth Sagdev, that they had legally obtained their birth certificates under the existing framework. They cited the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1967, and rules framed in 2000, which allow competent authorities to issue certificates for delayed registration upon payment of a fee.
They explained that amendments in 2023 transferred these powers to district collectors, who subsequently delegated them to tehsildars and naib tehsildars. Acting on these valid provisions, the petitioners secured their documents.
The Controversial Government Resolutions
The legal dispute stems from a series of government directives issued in 2025. In March 2025, a Government Resolution (GR) ordered the cancellation of all birth certificates issued after August 11, 2023. It mandated fresh applications under 13 new conditions, which the petitioners described as oppressive.
Subsequent resolutions in September and circulars in November and December 2025 escalated the matter. These provisions allowed for legal action against individuals found to have discrepancies between their Aadhaar card and birth certificate dates. The rules gave citizens only a 7-day period to respond to show-cause notices. Failure to respond would result in cases being filed and individuals being declared absconders.
The petitioners have challenged all three resolutions, contending they are arbitrary and violate established legal procedures.
The court acknowledged that a fair hearing depends on the government's detailed response and has issued notices to all respondents. The case highlights the tension between administrative orders and citizens' rights regarding vital identity documents.
