Nagpur: At a time when Nagpurians struggle to access even basic civic services, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) has quietly raked in over Rs 2.5 crore in just three years — by issuing something as fundamental as birth and death certificates. What appears on paper as an impressive revenue figure, however, hides a troubling story of administrative failure, suspected fraud, and public harassment.
Data accessed through an RTI filed by activist Abhay Kolarkar reveals that between January 2022 and March 2025, the civic body issued a whopping 4.45 lakh birth certificates and 79,319 death certificates, earning Rs 2.41 crore in the process. Birth certificates alone brought in Rs 1.39 crore, while death certificates accounted for Rs 1.01 crore. For a civic department meant to serve the public, the figures resemble the profit margins of a private enterprise more than the functioning of a government body.
Gold Rate
20 May 2025
But the revenue boom is overshadowed by a major controversy that rocked the department earlier this year. In January 2025, after mounting public outrage and media pressure, the NMC formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe serious allegations: forged birth certificates had allegedly been issued to illegal Bangladeshi migrants to help them acquire Indian identity documents.
Instead of immediately identifying the culprits, the NMC chose the easy way out — suspending the issuance of late birth and death certificates and cancelling 783 “unavailability certificates” issued between 2023 and 2025. This sweeping move penalised even those who had obtained documents legally, forcing them to relive the bureaucratic nightmare.
Now, in a stunning U-turn, the same civic body has reopened the certificate process, asking citizens to resubmit documents and – unsurprisingly — repay the processing fees. Legal applicants, already victimized by the mess, are once again queuing up outside municipal offices, enduring stress, confusion, and a sense of betrayal. Those unwilling to navigate the red tape are reportedly turning to touts who promise quick fixes—for a price.
The result? A public stripped of dignity, forced to pay for a scandal they had no part in creating. And a civic body that seems more interested in protecting its revenue stream than restoring public trust.
If the SIT fails to bring the real culprits to book, this episode may well go down as yet another chapter in the city’s long history of bureaucratic betrayal—where citizens suffer, and the system walks away richer.
