In Uttar Pradesh, the introduction of digital birth certificates represents a significant leap towards modernising record-keeping and enhancing accessibility for residents. This initiative allows parents to obtain birth certificates online, streamlining the registration process and reducing bureaucratic delays. By digitising these essential documents, the state aims to improve the accuracy of vital statistics while ensuring that families have easy access to necessary paperwork for various purposes, such as school admissions and healthcare services. Moreover, this development is expected to encourage more people to register births, thereby supporting government efforts to maintain comprehensive demographic databases and better planning for social services.

Key Takeaways: The Aadhaar Deadlock — Digital Birth Certificates in Uttar Pradesh

1. A valid document is being rejected without legal basis. Narayan Pratap Singh’s digital birth certificate (Reg. No. B-2023: 9-58804-009512) is state-issued, QR-coded, and confirmed authentic by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, UP. This situation exemplifies the scrutiny faced by Digital Birth Certificates in Uttar Pradesh. Such scrutiny occurs even when they comply with all official criteria. Yet, UIDAI has stalled his Aadhaar enrolment for months, in direct defiance of the RBD Act 1969.
2. Local governance failed at every level. The SDM of Sadar Mirzapur ordered a technical field inquiry in November 2025. Instead of complying, Lekhpal Pawan Kumar Shukla submitted a non-responsive report. The local staff told the applicant to ‘apply online’. This action effectively ignored a senior directive.
3. The state contradicts itself. The government issued a valid Domicile Certificate for the child. It was digitally signed by the SDM in December 2023. However, the state refuses to accept his birth certificate for Aadhaar. This legal incoherence between departments exposes a systemic flaw.
4. UIDAI’s regional office is unresponsive and unreachable. Deputy Director Vipin Verma at RO Lucknow has repeatedly closed grievances with automated replies. Permanent DNS errors on the office’s email addresses leave citizens with no way to seek a formal explanation or appeal.
5. The matter has escalated to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. On April 4, 2026, Keshav Pratap Singh filed a formal grievance (Reg. No. GOVUP/E/2026/0042085) addressed directly to CM Yogi Adityanath. The case is now under the oversight of Joint Secretary Shri Arvind Mohan.
6. An RTI has been filed to force accountability. Yogi M. P. Singh filed an RTI Application (Reg. No. DOCMO/R/2026/60327) to identify responsible officers and obtain file notes explaining the inconsistent treatment of the child’s documents.

Focus

1. Three core demands are being discussed: Officials must be accountable if they bypass senior directives. There must be a formal “Speaking Order” from UIDAI explaining the rejection. There should be zero-tolerance enforcement of delays against BDO Chhanbey.
2. The bigger picture. This case reflects a wider crisis around digital birth certificates in Uttar Pradesh. Digital tools meant to empower citizens are being used as shields for administrative apathy. This undermines India’s “corruption-free governance” mandate.

## The Aadhaar Deadlock: How Digital Birth Certificates in Uttar Pradesh Trapped by Administrative Evasion

In the digital age, the government seeks a “paperless” and “corruption-free” India. Yet, digital birth certificates in Uttar Pradesh are at the centre of a growing crisis. Citizens face persistent bureaucratic delays, conflicting departmental standards, and apparent administrative apathy. The case of Narayan Pratap Singh illustrates this failure. Local obstruction and regional indifference have rendered his digitally verifiable state document ineffective for him as a minor child.

## The Core Conflict: A Valid Digital Birth Certificate in a Locked System

At the heart of this grievance is a digital birth certificate in Uttar Pradesh (Registration Number B-2023: 9-58804-009512). It was issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths at PHC Vijaypur. The document carries a Government of India-approved disclaimer confirming its validity for all official purposes. Nevertheless, the system has stalled Aadhaar enrolment for months. (Aadhaar enrolment is the process by which citizens register for India’s unique identification number, used to access government services.)

The Directorate of Medical and Health Services, Uttar Pradesh (UP), confirmed this digital birth certificate’s authenticity and legal validity. They did so via Letter 24F/VS/IGRS/331/2025. Despite tthis confirmation the UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) Regional Office (RO) in Lucknow continues to demand additional verification. As a result, a “bottleneck” has formed — a point where the process slows or stops. This directly defies the Registration of Births and Deaths (RBD) Act 1969.

---

## The Breakdown of Local Governance: The BDO Chhanbey Factor

When a higher authority intervenes, one expects a swift resolution. Here, the SDM of Sadar Mirzapur—a senior administrative officer—ordered a technical field inquiry on November 17, 2025. The inquiry went to the Block Development Officer (BDO) Chhanbey, who oversees rural development in the local district unit. However, no swift resolution followed.

What followed was a masterclass in administrative evasion:

### The Non-Responsive Report

On January 13, 2026, Lekhpal Pawan Kumar Shukla—a local revenue official—submitted his report. Crucially, it failed to address the specific technical validation the SDM had requested.

• ### Technical Evasion
• Instead of confirming the facts on the ground, the local staff merely told the applicant to “apply online”. This ignored the SDM’s directive and left the file in a deadlock [cite: 84].
• ### Manufactured Complexity
• The complainant alleges the act was deliberate. In his view, local staff complicated a simple process to solicit “backdoor solutions”.

---

## Contradictory Standards: The Identity Paradox Around Digital Birth Certificates in Uttar Pradesh

One of the most glaring issues in this case is the “legal incoherence”. This incoherence exists between departments of the same state government.

The Revenue Department of Uttar Pradesh has issued a Domicile Certificate (Number 691232072043) for Narayan Pratap Singh. The SDM Mirzapur digitally signed it in December 2023. It therefore validates the child’s residency and identity. Yet the question remains: how can the state accept residency for one document while leaving identity “unverified” for another? An Aadhaar card involves resistance not just from local authorities. It also comes from automated processes at the regional office. Specifically, Deputy Director Vipin Verma at RO Lucknow has closed grievances with generic, automated replies. Ady verified the birth certificate. Worse, RO Lucknow’s communication channels fail. Permanent DNS delivery errors on their emails prevent citizens from requesting a “Speaking Order.” They also cannot get a human explanation for rejected state-verified documents.

## Escalation to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat

With local and regional offices failing to act, the complainant escalated the matter. He took it to the highest levels of state government. On April 4, 2026, Keshav Pratap Singh filed a formal grievance (Registration Number GOVUP/E/2026/0042085). It was addressed directly to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

The complainant, Keshav Pratap Singh (alias Tantrik K P Singh), questions the administration’s insufficient transparency:

1. Why does the government issue “two types” of birth certificates? One is valid for health records. The other is seemingly “invalid” for Aadhaar.
2. If a document is digitally verifiable and state-approved, why does the UIDAI have to demand additional, redundant SDM orders?

The case is currently under the oversight of Shri Arvind Mohan, Joint Secretary at the CM Secretariat in Lucknow. The demand is clear: summon BDO Chhanbey directly. BDO Chhanbey must produce the missing report. Also, require the UIDAI to explain their rejection criteria.

---

## The Path Forward: RTI and Legal Accountability for Digital Birth Certificates in Uttar Pradesh

To address the deadlock, Yogi M. P. Singh filed a formal RTI Application (Registration Number DOCMO/R/2026/60327). It aims to identify responsible officers. It also requests file notes that explain the inconsistent treatment of the child’s certificates.

### Demands for Administrative Justice

• #### Accountability
• The administration must hold personnel accountable who submit non-responsive reports to bypass senior directives.
• #### Transparency
• UIDAI must provide a “Speaking Order.” This is a formal written communication. It must explain the specific technical grounds for rejecting a QR-coded, state-verified certificate.
• #### Efficiency
• The administration must apply ‘Zero Tolerance’ for delays to the BDO Chhanbey. Above all, minor children must not lose their right to identity because of inaction.

## Conclusion

The case of Narayan Pratap Singh illustrates a broader struggle around digital birth certificates in Uttar Pradesh. It is a fight against systemic evasion that undermines the Aadhaar Act and the Constitution. When digital tools shield administrative apathy instead of empowering citizens, claims of ‘corruption-free governance’ lose their credibility. Ultimately, with the April deadline having passed, the Chief Minister’s Secretariat must decide whether ‘Zero Tolerance’ will be enforced in Mirzapur.

Based on the documents provided, here are the application IDs, contact details, and web links for the concerned public authorities involved in these grievances and RTI requests:

1. Grievance & RTI Application IDs

• Primary IGRS Grievance: GOVUP/E/2026/0024498 (Filed: 25/02/2026).
• Escalated IGRS Grievance (Filed: 04/04/2026).
• RTI Request Registration Number: DOCMO/R/2026/60327 (Filed: 04/04/2026).
• Previous UIDAI Grievances:

2. Concerned Public Authorities & Personnel

Chief Minister’s Secretariat (Lucknow)

• Officer Name: Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary).
• RTI Public Information Officer (PIO): Manju Verma (Section Officer, L.S. Sec-4).
• RTI Nodal Officer: Sanjay.
• Address: Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow.
• Contact Numbers:
  • Joint Secretary Desk: 0522-2226350.
  • PIO (Manju Verma): 9454419907.
  • Nodal Officer (Sanjay) 9454410972.
• Email Addresses:
  • arvind.12574@gov.in.
  • manju.19907@gov.in.
  • sanjay.10972@gov.in.

UIDAI Regional Office (Lucknow)

• Concerned Officer: Vipin Verma (Deputy Director).
• Note: Complainant reports official email channels are non-functional due to DNS delivery failures.

Local Authorities (Mirzapur)

• SDM Sadar Mirzapur: Issued original verification orders.
• BDO Chhanbey: Office responsible for the delayed technical field inquiry.
• Lekhpal: Pawan Kumar Shukla.

3. Web Link Details

• UP Jan Sunwai (IGRS) Portal: https://jansunwai.up.nic.in/ (Used for tracking registration numbers0042085).
• Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS): https://pgportal.gov.in/.
• UP RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/ (used for filing RTI60327).