Statutory provisions override circulars, and authorities must initiate necessary inquiry as per the relevant legal provisions for correcting birth certificate entries.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that his date of birth be changed from 06.08.1981 to 07.07.1981 and his name in the birth certificate be entered as Tejaskumar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely on documents such as Pan Card, School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar Card as well as Passport of the petitioner which indicate that the petitioner’s date of birth is 07.07.1981 and his name is Tejaskumar. Reliance is placed on a decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 21302 of 2019 dated 02.12.2021. Relevant paragraph of the said decision read as under:

“9. At this stage, the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1969, are also worth referring to. Section 15 reads thus:

“15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths - If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.”

10. Similarly, the State Government, has framed the Rules of 2004, relevant would be sub-rule (4) and sub-rule (5) of the Rule 11. Sub-Rule (4) and sub-rule (5) of Rule 11 read thus:

“(4) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of Births and Deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 of the Act upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Rule (1) and Sub-Rule (4), the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the District Registrar of Births and Deaths.” A bare reading of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1969 in juxtaposition with sub-rule (4) of Rule 11, throws sufficient light that the Registrar, will be well within its power to carry out the correction; failing to undertake such exercise and rejecting the application only on the ground that it does not have powers; such action would be illegal and deserves to be deprecated.

11. Quiet apart the Circular dated 18.2.2016, had fallen for consideration before this Court in the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel W/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 Gujarat 56 and this Court, has held and observed that the circular cannot override the provisions of the Act and it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to initiate the necessary inquiry as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004. In the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel (supra), this Court, in paragraph 8 has formulated the issue which has been replied in paragraph 25. Relevant paragraphs 25 and 26 read thus:

“25. Thus, answer to Issue No. (i) framed as above, is that Circular dated 18.02.2016 issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths and Commissioner (Health), State of Gujarat, cannot override the statutory provisions and answer to Issue No. (ii) is that Competent Authority appointed under the provisions of the Act of 1969 and Rules framed thereunder cannot simply rely upon the circular and reject the request of the concerned applicant, without making necessary inquiry.

26. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, if the facts as discussed hereinabove are examined, it is revealed that respondent No. 2 has rejected