Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Law demands clear inquiry and disclosure if death is wrongly recorded in SIR reports

Law demands clear inquiry and disclosure if death is wrongly recorded in SIR reports

When a death is recorded in an SIR report, what are the basic legal responsibilities of the organisation involved to explain what happened and ensure the situation is properly investigated? How does the law decide whether the organisation, or the people working there, may have been negligent or failed in their duty of care? What information are families legally entitled to access, and what options do they have if they believe mistakes were made? Also, how do wider problems — like lack of staff or poor training — affect who is held responsible and what changes the law might require?

— R Rajasekharan, Chitlapakkam

Recently, a friend of mine, who is a divorcee, told me that when she did not receive the SIR forms, she went to their office and found, to her shock, that she was marked dead. It was only after a great deal of effort and by showing her Election ID card that the record was corrected. There is no reliable method to ensure that genuinely deceased individuals alone are removed from the list. As happened in her case, her divorced husband reportedly gave false information to the BLO deliberately to spite her. Since we do not have a full-fledged staff for the Election Commission and revision of rolls occurs mainly before elections, such problems arise. The ECI should automatically link with the register of births and deaths maintained by state governments and carry out timely corrections.

Advisory Presidential opinions not binding but can influence future judicial decisions

The Supreme Court’s opinion in the Presidential Reference on setting timelines for Governors has seemingly raised a new issue. Whether gubernatorial heads need not accept a Bill sent back and adopted again by a Legislative Assembly is a fresh question that arises. This opinion goes against the understanding that once an Assembly adopts a returned Bill and sends it back to the Governor, it is deemed passed or must be accepted by the Raj Bhavan. Do you think the apex court has inadvertently given a new interpretation to that?

— G Manikandan, Mandaiveli, Chennai

Recently, Justice Surya Kant, when he took over the office of CJI, said that decisions should not be changed frequently lest people may lose faith in the court system itself. Another judge, Justice Nagarathna, also voiced the same sentiment. She also added that judgments should not vary based on the Bench composition and allow litigants to choose the Bench. The Presidential opinion rendered by the Supreme Court in its advisory capacity has no legal binding as declared under Article 141, as it is only advisory in nature. However, it can influence future decision-making, and the government may also, with impunity, defy previous decisions without getting those orders reversed in a proper appeal or review.