The Ministry of Home Affairs has floated proposed amendments to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 which entails a national database of record of births and deaths and linking Aadhar information to the same. It also wishes to use this data to update the much opposed National Population Register (NPR) to ultimately make it easy for creating the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The proposal, while seemingly being a slight change in the system and process of record of deaths and births, has a larger interest at play. We discuss how these proposed changes will have a significant and far reaching impact on the wider population which lacks access to proper infrastructure and will remain unaware how a registration of birth which could benefit them in receiving welfare scheme could now put their status as a citizen of the country at risk.

The Ministry has sought the comments of the public and the window for sending in comments is open for 30 days after October 27.

Centralized database

Through the amendments, the Centre proposes to maintain a centralized database of the births and deaths in the country, which has until now been a prerogative of the States. Now, a Chief Registrar appointed by state will keep a record of deaths and births who will also ensure that the same is integrated with the national database. Never has any government before this, felt the need to bring about such changes which is merely a parallel record of deaths and births which is sufficient for states to maintain. Centralising the database means the data will be used by the Centre for keeping it records and use it for other databases.

This has been clearly worded in the proposed amendment by way of adding a sub-section 3A under section 3 of the Act. The sub-section 3A reads as follows:

New Insertion:

“(3A) The Registrar General, India shall maintain the database of registered births and deaths at national level, that may be used, with the approval of Central Government, to update Population Register prepared under the Citizenship Act, 1955; Electoral Registers or Electoral Rolls prepared under Representation of People Act, 1951; Aadhaar Database prepared under Aadhaar Act, 2016, Ration Card database prepared under National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA); Passport Database prepared under the Passport Act; and Driving Licence database under Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 and other databases at national level subject to proviso of Section 17 (1) of RBD Act, 1969”

In section 3, the Central government can be seen encroaching upon the maintenance of a ‘database of registered births and deaths’ which was not provided for earlier.

Under Entry 3 of the Concurrent List which is part of the Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution, include “Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths.” This clearly indicates that record of registration of births and deaths was considered a topic which did not need to be assigned to just the states or just the Centre and up until now the process has been running smoothly with States handling and maintaining these records with minimal role being played by the Centre. However, since the topic is in the concurrent list, the Centre has the power to make laws on the same without having to take sanction of the states and any law made by the Centre in this regard will overrule any law made by the state in this regard, if it runs contrary to what the Centre has proposed.

The proposal also inserts sub-section 3A entrusting the Registrar General to maintain the database of deaths and births at the national level in order to update the National Population Register (NPR), Electoral Registers, Aadhar Database, Ration card database, Passport Database as well as the driving license database. Further, the Chief Registrar functioning at the State level is entrusted with the task of maintaining a unified database for integrating it with the national database.

The prime intention of the Centre behind making these propositions for amendment is to update the database of the NPR which is also the first step towards creating the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Under section 8 it also requires that Aadhar number of parents and informant in cases of birth and in case of death, Aadhar number of the deceased, parents, husband or wife and the informant will be required to be input while recording deaths and births. This will allow the Centre to gather Aadhar information of those related to persons being born and the deceased, making it a wider and complex net of database which the Centre will possess.

Why is centralization of this data a problem?

The Centre has clearly stated that this data will be used for updating NPR, Electoral Registers, Aadhar Database, Ration card database, Passport Database as well as the driving license database. This means, the Centre will be able to track births, deaths,

The centre will have a record of all the registered deaths and will use the same to update NPR which will in turn be used to make the nation wide NRC. However, the question arises, what about those births that are not registered?

Citizen for Justice and Peace’s experience working on the citizenship issue in Assam has led to the realization that out of people exclude from NRC, vast numbers were children because the parents could not provide their birth certificates. Children below 18 do not have voter’s ID cards and if they have not given class 10 or 12 board examination their only proof of birth in the country is the birth certificate and if the infrastructure for registering births is not robust in rural or remote areas, it is likely that a large chunk of population does not exist on paper for the government and there is no way for them to prove that they were indeed born in this country. Hence, if this data is centralized and used to update NPR and eventually the NRC, this population has no strong proof of citizenship and stands at the risk of becoming non-citizens or aliens in the country they were born in. This, in itself, is a potential grave humanitarian crisis.

India is among the five countries – the others being Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Pakistan – that are home to half of the world’s 166 million children whose births have not been registered, according to a 2019 UNICEF report. In India, nearly 24 million children under five years of age did not have their births registered in the last five years, UNICEF estimated.

Dipa Sinha, assistant professor at Dr BR Ambedkar University Delhi stated that birth registrations picked up only after institutional deliveries increased in the 2000s. This cannot be ignored at all since the population born before 2000 is also at a great risk of not having their existence recorded in government records and are at a risk of having their citizenship questioned. The rate of birth registration in the year 2000 was at 56.2% which means that almost half the population born in that year did not have their births registered.

Based on information received from 32 States/UTs, share of institutional births to total registered births is 81.2 percent. This means that despite institutional births, there are loopholes whereby registration of births has been missed out.

With so many hurdles in place , infrastructural issues and lack of awareness for registering births, gathering of this incomplete data leaving a vulnerable population even more vulnerable , at the risk of being deemed “foreigners” in their own country.

Updating electoral rolls

As per figures released by Civil Registration System of the Office of the Registrar General of India, level of registration of births has increased to 92.7 percent in 2019 from 84.9% in 2017. While the increase is significant and creates hopes that one day all births in India will be registered, the 92.7% registration still leaves 7.3% of children whose births have not been registered.

Under Article 324 of the Constitution superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for conduct of elections are powers exclusively vested in the Election Commission (EC). The MHA is prying over the EC as well when it plans to keep updating the electoral rolls with this centralized database. This will not just make it a tedious and confusing process but will also make matters difficult for the EC as it would have to depend on MHA for such data and depend solely on this data when EC remains an autonomous body, the independence of which is a key aspect of our democracy.

Linking Aadhar with deaths and births

Once again the government is  surreptitiously trying to link the Aadhar with other government policies and programmes, which are unrelated to the intent of the Aadhar Act. The Aadhaar card, with its Unique Identification Number, at its inception was an identity document meant to be a means for inclusion. The Act itself is called The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

In Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had examined the constitutional validity of the Aadhar Act and also held that Aadhar does not violate one’s right to privacy. One of the many contentions in the petition was the linking of the Aadhar which was being made mandatory. The court however only upheld the linking of Aadhar for paying direct taxes and for social welfare schemes including Public Distribution System (PDS). However, it said that Aadhar cannot be made mandatory for opening bank accounts or for children seeking admission in schools or even by telecom companies seeking Aadhar of their service users.

When all these were struck down by the Court, is the Centre’s move to make Aadhar mandatory for births and deaths valid? It is merely another attempt being made by the Centre to make a centralized database of all kinds of information that it can have on its citizens and make a repository of all this data in absence of any data protection laws, putting the privacy of billions at risk.

The proposed amendments may be read here:

Related:

CJP’s online training programme on CAA-NPR-NRC

Controversial questions removed from NPR?

NPR is Step One to NRC, don’t be fooled

CAA-NPR-NRC – Why is there so much controversy? Should citizens worry?

The post Centralising record of deaths and births: Centre’s play at a future NRC? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: indiatoday.in

Activist Saket Gokhale has filed an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI) asking the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) about the number of birth certificates digitized so far. Gokhale says this information is important amidst concerns of a National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) that has been hinted at by the government in wake of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

In a series of tweets Gokhale says, “Here’s a legal way of stalling the roll-out of the NRC: I’ve filed an RTI with the MEITY (which runs the Digital India program) asking how many birth certificates have been digitized across various states under this program. I’ve also asked from which year digitization has been done.”

He asks, “Birth certificate is a conclusive proof of citizenship for the NRC according to the govt. However, if the govt. itself doesn’t have digitized copies of birth certificates, how will it give duplicate copies to those that have lost it/don’t have it?”

Gokhale adds, “I’ll be filing a similar request with the Maharashtra Govt.” He recommends his followers try the same, “What I’d like from some of u is to file a similar request with ur respective state govt. If the govt. doesn’t have ALL birth certificates digitized, there’s no way it can expect citizens to have a copy.”

Expalining the rationale behind his RTI application, Gokhalae tweets, “Reply to this request allows us to approach High Courts praying for a writ directing state govts. to digitize ALL birth certificates. And after this is done, we bring up the issue of unregistered births/home births for which people have no proof. The govt. must first devise a policy to ensure that these people aren’t left out.”

He concludes with, “And until all this is complete, we will pray for a complete stay on NRC since citizens need access to a copy of their birth certificate. Will do EVERYTHING possible to fight and ensure that the draconian NRC is stalled indefinitely.”

A copy of Gokhale’s application may be viewed here:

SabrangIndia’s sister organisation Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) that has been running a campaign for over a year to help Indian citizens in Assam navigate the tortuous processes involved in the update of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), has reported previously about how documentary proof of citizenship is actually a conspiracy of exclusion.

When it comes to birth certificates, it is important to note that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act was enacted in 1969. This act made it compulsory to register all births. However, according to UNICEF, “The current registration level of births and deaths in the country is about 58% for births and 54% for deaths. Each year about 42% of births go unregistered, which is about 10 million births.” Now if this is the case today, imagine what it was like back in the time of our parents and grandparents! Will they declare people ‘infiltrators’ or ‘non-citizens’ in case their parents don’t have birth certificates?

The post How many Birth Certificates digitized across states: Activist files RTI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Outlook

The judgement came after Ms Madhumita Ramesh filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court against the Tiruchi Municipal Corporation (TMC). The petitioner had undergone intrauterine insemination after her divorce and gave birth to a baby girl on 23 April 2017. TMC issued the birth certificate for her daughter in August, where they named the sperm donor as the father. Objecting to this, Ms Ramesh asked TMC to reissue the birth certificate without the sperm donors’ name; TMC refused saying that the law requires that birth certificates carry the father’s name.

TMC argued that as per the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, it is mandatory to record the both the parents’ name in the register. Referring to this clause in the judgement and criticising the old Act, Justice MS Ramesh said, even though the old rules don’t have the provision to erase the father’s name from the certificate, in the current case:

… the woman has gone through “Intrauterine Fertility Treatment”… The affidavit of Mr.Manish Madanpal Meena, dated 31.01.2018 evidences that he is no way related to the petitioner and that the petitioner was only an acquaintance who had helped her on humanitarian ground in the hospital, during the time of her delivery.

The judge further added that it should be enough for the mother to submit an affidavit that the child was born from her womb. The court also stated that since the child was conceived through artificial insemination, the sperm donor should not be named as the father of the child, or mentioned in any other way on the birth certificate.

“It’s a highly progressive move because it recognises the primary right of mothers to their children’s custody and natural guardianship,” said Sujata Madhok, a journalist who specialises on women’s issues.

The judgement has also been welcomed by women’s rights activists.

Writer and activist Githa Hariharan says, “It’s high time the law made this move to insist on a single mother’s rights and, indeed, the right of the child to the only functional parent she has.  Laws must reflect reality, and this reality includes mothers who never married; mothers who have been deserted; and mothers who are divorced or separated.”

In 1999, the writer (in the case Githa Hariharan and another Vs. Reserve Bank of India) challenged the validity of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 in the Supreme Court. In 1984, the writer applied to the Reserve Bank of India for 9% Relief Bond to be held in the name of her son Rishab, a minor at the time, along with an intimation that the she, being the mother, would act as the natural guardian for the purposes of investments. The application, however, was sent back by the RBI authority advising her to produce the application signed by the father.  A Supreme Court bench, chaired by Justice Umesh C Banerjee, criticised the existing law and passed a historic judgement saying that a mother’s right over the child cannot come “after” the father in the matter of guardianship; they are both to be considered equal.

ICF spoke to Shalini Dixit in Bangalore who faced something similar when admitting her child to a school.

“I had to fight legally to get my child’s custody, in addition to dealing with the social stigma that comes with being a single mother. What made this worse, for me, was that my child’s school required me to mention the father’s name in all the documents. When I refused, they asked me to give it in writing that I was the sole caretaker of the child. In the ID cards of the student’s, only the father’s name is mentioned. I objected to this and insisted that they write my name instead of the father’s. The problem is that it is assumed that a child’s legal caretaker and guardian is the father. This judgement will make things easier for single mothers.”

What is common in all these cases is the underlying presumption that a man is superior to a woman. Consequently, a father’s identity is considered central to the child’s identity.

Sreelakshmi is a member of the editorial collective of the Indian Writers’ Forum

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Women Respond to Madras HC Judgement: Father’s Name not Required in Birth Certificates appeared first on SabrangIndia.