Kerala High Court
Reshmi Rajan vs The Registrar Of Births And Deaths on 6 September, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
2024:KER:68195
W.A.No.1369 of 2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946
WA NO. 1369 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.08.2024 IN
WP(C) NO.38764 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RESHMI RAJAN
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O RAJENDRAN PILLAI, KARAKKATTU HOUSE,
KODUKULANJI P.O, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DT.,
PIN - 689508.
BY ADVS.
SHASHANK DEVAN
K.M.ANEESH
ADARSH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS
CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY, CHENGANNUR P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121
BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.V.N.HARIDAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:68195
W.A.No.1369 of 2024 2
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Acg.C.J. & S.MANU, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1369 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of September, 2024
JUDGMENT
S.MANU, J.
Appellant submitted an application under Section
15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to the
1st respondent, seeking correction of date of birth in the
birth register and also for issuing a corrected birth
certificate. According to the appellant, she was actually
born on 13.3.1981. In her SSLC certificate, Aadhaar Card
and passport the date of birth is correctly shown as
13.3.1981. However, in the register maintained by the
respondent the date of birth is erroneously shown as
13.12.1980. Appellant approached this Court in W.P.
(C)No.26528/2023 earlier. When the said case was heard,
2024:KER:68195
it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent that the application was not traceable. The
counsel for the appellant then submitted that a fresh
application will be submitted. Learned Single Judge
disposed the writ petition directing the respondent to
consider the application in a time bound manner. The
respondent later issued Ext.P7 stating that the application
can be considered only if a copy of the gynaec register
certified by the medical officer of the hospital where the
appellant was born along with a letter intimating correction
is produced. Later, by Ext.P8, the application was virtually
rejected.
2. Aggrieved by the rejection of the request,
appellant filed W.P.(C)No.38764/2023. The learned Single
Judge rejected the writ petition noting that the correction
has been sought after a gap of 43 years and therefore
2024:KER:68195
there is no merit in the writ petition.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the hospital where the appellant was born
was closed about 25 years ago. Documents like gynaec
register are therefore not available and complying with
the direction in Ext.P7 has therefore become impossible.
He further submitted that the appellant is applying for
permanent residency in the United States of America and
the discrepancy in the date of birth certificate will adversely
affect her. He relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.648/2011. The learned Standing
Counsel submitted that the application for correction can be
considered only if the copy of the relevant page of the
2024:KER:68195
register maintained by the hospital and certified by the
medical officer is produced. He justified the decision taken
by the respondent by stating that the same is well in
accordance with the relevant legal provisions and also
instructions issued by the Government.
5. We perused the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.648/2011. We find the
factual situation in the said case was almost identical. This
Court considered the relevant legal provisions and held that
insistence on production of a certificate from the hospital
was illegal. In the said case also the hospital concerned
had become defunct. The Division Bench therefore held
that apart from being illegal, compliance with the demand
made by the authority was impossible. This Court also
considered the provisions of Section 15 of the Kerala
Registration of Births and Deaths Act as well as the relevant
2024:KER:68195
provisions of the Rules made thereunder. The Division
Bench finally upheld the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge to correct the date of birth recorded in the
register of births and deaths, after submission of affidavits
of the parents of the applicants in the case regarding the
actual date of birth.
6. We are bound to follow the judgment in
W.A.No.648/2011 as the factual situation of this case is
almost identical. Therefore, we allow this appeal.
Judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The
respondent is directed to correct the date of birth of the
appellant on the basis of her application after examining
the documents including SSLC certificate, passport and
Aadhaar card. The appellant shall also produce affidavit of
any of her parents before the respondent stating the
correct date of birth, in addition to the copies of documents
2024:KER:68195
produced already. Respondent shall make necessary
correction in the register after examining the documents
and the affidavit within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and issue a copy
of the corrected certificate to the appellant.
Writ appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
S.MANU,
JUDGE
skj
