Point of Law: Interpretation of the Constitution cannot be frozen by its original understanding that it must evolve with the felt necessities of time, to meet the aspirations and challenges of the present and future. By the passage of time, evolution of techniques, change in life style and personal choices recognized by the Rule of Law, appropriate modifications/changes/additions/alterations need to be made in Statutes, Rules and the forms prescribed thereunder.

JUDGMENT :

SATHISH NINAN, J.

1. The concepts of “right of privacy, right of liberty and the right of dignity” have been the subject of authoritative pronouncements by Constitutional Benches of the Apex Court recently. [See K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 2017 (10) SCC 1 and Navtej Singh Johar and Others vs. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321]. One of the facets of the said right pops up for consideration in the present case.

2. The petitioner is a divorcee. The decree, on mutual consent, was passed on 27.11.2020. Thereafter, on 29.01.2021, the petitioner opted to get conceived by In Vitro Fertilization (in short “IV-F”) procedure. Ext.P2 is a copy of the treatment summary issued from the Fertility Centre. The identity of the sperm donor has not been disclosed to the petitioner, and is kept anonymous. In Ext.P2 treatment summary, the reason for C.R. undergoing the procedure is stated thus: “single parent.” The concern of the petitioner relates to fulfilment of certain formalities for registration of the birth of the child, on delivery.

3. The format for registration of births and deaths is prescribed by the State of Kerala under the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The form contains columns which require disclosure of the name of the father of the child. The petitioner contends that she cannot be required to provide the name of the father, for reasons more than one viz. (i) The identity of the sperm donor is kept anonymous and has not been and could not be disclosed even to the petitioner and (ii) such requirement intrudes upon her right of privacy, liberty and dignity.

4. Heard Smt. Aruna A. the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Assistant Solicitor General.

5. In ABC vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 SCC 1, the Apex Court while dealing with an issue of guardianship held thus:-

“The law is dynamic and is expected to diligently keep pace with time and the legal conundrums and enigmas it presents. There is no gainsaying that the identity of the mother is never in doubt. Accordingly, we direct that if a single parent/unwed mother applies for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an affidavit to this effect and must thereupon issue the Birth Certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary.”

6. Referring to the said judgment, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, issued directions to the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths throughout the country, to have the birth of the child of a single parent/unwed mother to be registered showing the name of the single parent in the birth record leaving the name of the other parent blank. A copy of the said communication has been produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P5. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 communication is extracted hereunder:-

“Taking into consideration the above direction, you are requested to issue the necessary direction to the concerned registration functionaries for strict compliance of above direction and ensure that no one is denied birth registration of a child of a single parent/unwed mother. In such cases, the name of single parent will be written in the birth record and name of other parent will be left blank.”

7. Requiring the petitioner to leave the column relating to the name of the father in the prescribed form as blank, interferes with the right of dignity, privacy and liberty, grieves the petitioner. The fundamental rights guaranteed to her as a citizen of the country are violated, she contends.

8. The forms for registration of births and deaths have been prescribed under the Rules. The State Government has prescribed the Rules as is required under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 8(1) of the Act requires the particulars sought for in the forms prescribed by the State Governmen