Authorities must conduct a proper inquiry under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act before rejecting name corrections in birth certificates.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Issue rule, returnable forthwith. Ms Jeenal Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr Rohan N. Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2.

3. The petitioner, in the captioned writ petition, has prayed for direction to the respondent no.2 – Registrar, Birth, Death & Marriage, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to correct birth name of the petitioner from “Dipika” to “Sangita”. The petitioner, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the respondent no.2, rejecting the request of the petitioner for correction of the name in the birth certificate. Hence, the captioned writ petition.

4. Mr Chirag A. Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the birth of the petitioner was registered with the office of the respondent no.2 with the date of birth mentioned as 31.01.1973. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner i.e. “Dipika”, recorded in the birth certificate, is likely to create impediment in applying for passport and other documents. It is submitted that all the documents, namely, Aadhar Card, School Leaving Certificate, Passport, PAN Card, Marriage Certificate, Mark- sheet of 10th & 12th and Certificate of Gazette, carry the name of the petitioner as “Sangita” and not “Dipika”. It is submitted that the application was filed, requesting the respondent no.2 to carry out the correction; however, the respondent no.2, without properly considering the provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1969”) read with Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2004”), has rejected the application. It is submitted that when the documents produced contain the name of the petitioner as “Sangita”, there was no reason available to the respondent no.2 to have rejected the application. It is therefore, urged that considering the public documents on record, the respondent no.2 be directed to carry out the correction in the birth certificate of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, Mr Rohan N. Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.2 submitted that no error has been committed by the respondent no.2 while recording the entry in the birth certificate. The information as provided, has rightly been considered and it cannot be said that any error has been committed in passing the order dated 25.09.2023. It is therefore, urged that the request of the petitioner was rightly not entertained.

6. Ms Jeenal Acharya, learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the stand of the respondent no.2.

7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record.

8. The petitioner, was born on 31.07.1973 and the factum of her birth, was registered on 09.02.1973 at Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Act of 1969. Accordingly, the respondent no.2, issued a certificate of birth containing the name of the petitioner as “Dipika”.

9. Notably, the petitioner has placed on record numerous public documents, namely, School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar Card, Passport, Marksheets, Certificate of Registration of Marriage, PAN Card etc. Besides, the petitioner has also placed on record the Gujarat Government Gazette of the year 1991 wherein, the surname has been rectified