Important Points:
The Registrar of Births and Deaths has the power to consider the pleas for correction not only in respect of the factual scenarios conceived in Section 15 of the Act and the Rule 11 of the Rules but also in respect of the factual scenarios which are not covered by those statutory provisions and in such cases, where the pleas are not covered by the factual scenarios conceived in Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules, then the Registrar will have to exercise his discretion by examining as to whether the pleas for correction are genuine and bona fide and are not vitiated by any extraneous and ulterior considerations and further that in such cases, the golden rule is that the Registrar should then exercise his discretion by following the well known principles of justice, equity and good conscience etc.

1. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“i. Call for records connecting Exts.P-1 to P-9 from the respondents concerned.

ii. Call for Ext. P-9 from the 2nd respondent and issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the same;

iii. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing 2nd respondent to include the name of child 'Adhnan T.S.' and effect the correction of names and addresses of the petitioners as parents of the child, sought for in Exhibits P-2 and P-3.”

2. Heard Sri. K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R1. Though notice has been duly served by special messenger on R-2 Panchayath, there is no appearance for that party.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned decision rendered by the notified Registrar of Births and Deaths attached to the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat rendered as per the impugned Ext.P9 order dated 8.11.2018, whereby the applications made by the petitioners as per Exts.P2 and P3 for inclusion of the name of their child as well as for correction of the entries in the said certificate regarding the names and addresses of the parents of the child etc. have been rejected.

4. From the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the petitioners are spouses and a male child was born in that wedlock on 6.2.2015 and the delivery of the child had taken place at Shanthi Hospital, Omasserry, Kozhikode District. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner was implicated as an accused in Crime No.704/2010 of Muvattupuzha Police Station and that he had absconded with the 2nd petitioner and was residing incognito at Omaserry within the limits of the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat in Kozhikode. During that period, a male child was born in their wedlock and the 2nd petitioner has delivered the child on 6.2.2015 at Shanthi Hospital, Omaserry as afore stated. That fearing arrest, the petitioners had given wrong names and addresses as the parents of the child to Shanthi Hospital authorities, who in turn had conveyed the said wrong information to the Registrar of Births and Deaths attached to the 2nd respondent Omaserry Grama Panchayat and such erroneous entries regarding the names of the parents was thus shown in Ext.P1 birth certificate. It is also pointed out that the name of the child was also not mentioned by the petitioners in the information given by them to the hospital and therefore, the name of the child is not shown in the birth certificate issued by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P1. From a perusal of Ext.P1 birth certificate, it can be seen that the name of the father of the child is shown as 'Musthaque' and the name of the mother of the child is shown as 'Ayisha Musthaque' and no name is shown as against the coloumn 4, the name of the child. The gender of the child is shown as 'male' and the date of birth of the child is shown as 6.2.2015'. So also the addresses of the parents of the child are also shown as 'Puthan purayil House, Pilassery, Kozhikode, Kerala, India'. The petitioners would assert that as a matter of fact they are the parents of the child mentioned in Ext.P1 and they had given wrong information to the hospital authorities concerned as otherwise they felt that the 1st petitioner will be arrested, as he was then abs-condoning in the said crime proceedings and non-bailable warrant was also pending as against him.

5. It is now pointed out by Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that later the 1st petitioner had surrendered and was remanded to judicial custody and subsequently he had secured bail and the case is now numbered Sessions Case, S.C.No.2/2015, which is now on trial under the Sessions Court dealing with designated National Investigation Agency (NIA) cases and the 1st petitioner is the 2nd accused therein for various offences including under Section 307 IPC and the allegation therein is that the accused persons including the