Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Fathima Richelle Mather, D/o. Shafi Mather - Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar of Births and Deaths and Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18413 of 2023 (LB-BMP)
Decided On : 01-09-2023
Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 allows for the inclusion of a child's name in the birth certificate within 15 years of registration. The court finds that the birth certificate issued to the petitioner did not indicate this requirement. The court also considers the Ministry of Home Affairs' communication, which emphasizes the responsibility of the Corporation to make known the requirement of Rule 10 to the public.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement refusing to include her name in the birth certificate. She argues that all her other documents indicate her parents' names and she should be allowed to have her name included. The respondent argues that the Ministry of Home Affairs' instruction prevents them from making the insertion. The court considers whether the Municipal Corporation can refuse the insertion and finds that there is no valid reason for the refusal. The court orders the respondent to issue a birth certificate with the petitioner's name included and to incorporate the requirements of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 in all future birth certificates.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzes Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999, which allows for the inclusion of a child's name in the birth certificate within 15 years of registration. The court finds that the birth certificate issued to the petitioner did not indicate this requirement, and therefore, the petitioner should not be denied the inclusion of her name. The court also considers the Ministry of Home Affairs' communication and finds that it was not made known to the petitioner. The court concludes that the petitioner should not be penalized for her parents' mistake and orders the respondent to issue the birth certificate with her name included.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that when the identity and paternity of the petitioner are not in dispute, she should not be denied a birth certificate with her name on it. The court emphasizes that a mistake by the parents should not disadvantage the child, especially when the child requires the birth certificate for employment purposes. The court also highlights the need to consider the child's minority status during the 15-year period for inclusion of the name in the birth certificate.
Result: The writ petition is allowed. The endorsement refusing to include the petitioner's name in the birth certificate is quashed. The respondent is directed to issue a birth certificate with the petitioner's name included within 30 days. The respondent is also directed to incorporate the requirements of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999 in all future birth certificates.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the endorsement bearing No. JDS/PR/1581/2023-24 dated 28.07.2023 issued by Respondent (Annexure-E)
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order and direct the respondent to issue Birth Certificate of the petitioner by including her name.
c. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner is a citizen of India at present pursuing her Master’s in Management Program at IE University, Madrid, Spain. The petitioner was born on 28.4.2000 at Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore and in the birth certificate which had been issued the name of the father and mother of the petitioner was incorporated. However, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the said birth certificate.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner has carried on all her education in Cochin. She has studied until her 10th standard of Vidyodaya School, Cochin. The petitioner had applied for and issued Aadhaar Card, Passport as also on completing her education she was issued the Grade sheet-cum-Certificate of performance by the Central Board of Secondary Education.
4. On a requirement having arisen for her to place her birth certificate on record for employment purpose, the petitioner made an application to the respondent for inserting her name in the birth certificate and issuing such a birth certificate containing her name.
5. The said request came to be rejected by the respondents vide Annexure-E dated 7.3.2022, on the ground that as per the instruction issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 15 year period had been provided for entering the name of the person born in the birth certificate, if not already entered into and the said 15 year period having expired in the year 2015 was extended for a period of 5 years thereafter, which also expired in the year 2020 and subsequent thereto there is no provision to incorporate the name of the person born in the birth certificate, since the period has expired. The said period of 15 years to be calculated one year from the coming into force of Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
6. Sri. Rakesh B. Bhatt., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all and every record of the petitioner, apart from the birth certificate, indicate the name of her parents. There is no dispute as regards the petitioner being born to Mr. Shafi Mather and Mrs. Beena Mather. It is only that her name had not been incorporated in the birth certificate on 28.4.2000 when it was issued. The said fact being of no consequence, since all other documents have been issued to her, it is only when a requirement arose that an application was filed which ought not to have been refused since it is only clerical work to be made of insertion of the name of the petitioner in the birth certificate. On these grounds, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs sought to be granted.
7. Sri. Pawan Kumar., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation would, however, submit that is only on account of the instruction issued by the Ministry of Home affairs that the insertion could not be made since the period has expired and on that ground he submits that the hands of the respondents are tied and no fault can be found with the respondents.
8. Heard Sri. Rakesh B. Bhatt., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Pawan Kumar., learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused papers.
9. A short point that would arise for consideration is whether the Municipal Corporation who is incharge of issuing birth and death Certificates in terms of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 can refuse the insertion of the name of the person born in the birth certificate when suc
AI
When the identity and paternity of a petitioner are not in dispute, they should not be denied a birth certificate with their name on it. A mistake by the parents should not disadvantage the child, es....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
