IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
Ummu Kulsoom D/o. Shamnas Shamsudeen – Appellant
Versus
Mayyanad Grama Panchayath – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22274 OF 2023
(A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 8(1) - Writ petition challenging the rejection of a birth registration application by the local Panchayath - The petitioners claimed the birth of the child occurred at home without medical assistance, and the application was rejected due to lack of evidence - The court found the rejection improper as the Panchayath failed to conduct a proper inquiry and did not consider affidavits provided by relatives - The court emphasized that leniency should be applied in cases regarding birth registration, as strict evidence is unnecessary. (Paras 1 - 6 )
(B) Fundamental Rights - Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India - The denial of birth registration was found to violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner. (Paras 1 and 4 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to register the birth of the 1st petitioner, claiming it occurred at home without medical assistance. The application was rejected due to lack of evidence. (Paras 1 and 4 )
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the rejection order and directed the Panchayath to reconsider the application, taking into account the affidavits provided. (Paras 6 and 7 )
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the birth registration application was justified given the circumstances of the birth and the evidence provided. (Paras 4 and 6 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Panchayath's rejection lacked proper inquiry and that leniency should be applied in birth registration matters, emphasizing the importance of considering available evidence. (Paras 6 and 7 )
Result: Writ petition disposed of, quashing the rejection order and directing reconsideration of the birth registration. (Paras 6 and 7 )
JUDGMENT :
The 1st petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The petitioners are the residents of Kottarakara at Kollam District. The case of the petitioners is that, when the 3rd petitioner, visited the residence of one of her relatives, who was residing in Ward No.7 of 1st respondent Grama Panchayath, she gave birth to a child, the 1st petitioner herein, before the 3rd respondent could be taken to the hospital and without any medical assistance. Therefore, the 2nd petitioner intimated the fact of birth of the 1st petitioner to the 2nd respondent, the Secretary to the 1st respondent Panchayath as evidenced by the Ext.P2, and requested for issuance of a birth certificate. However, the said application was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 order on the reason that, after an inquiry conducted by the Superintendent, CHC Mayyanad, it was reported that, there is no evidence that the 1st petitioner was born in the House No.169 within the jurisdiction of Ward No.7 of the 1st respondent Panchayath as claimed by the petitioners and the petitioners are also not residing within the residence referred above. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners in such circumstances seeking the following reliefs:-
i) to issue a Writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P3 communication issued by the 2nd respondent as letter No. A5.4552/2021 as it is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,
ii)to issue an order or direction declaring that denial of registration of birth by the 2nd respondent is violative of Article 21 of the fundamental rights of the 1st petitioner,
iii) to issue Mandamus or order or direction to the 2nd respondent to register the birth of the 1st petitioner and issue birth certificate as per Kerala Registrar of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999.
iv) to issue an order or direction to the 3rd respondent to take a decision on Ext P4 expeditiously as possible within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court
v) to issue and order or direction to dispense with translation of documents in vernacular language produced as Exhibits in the writ petition,
vi) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
2. A counter affidavit was filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents wherein they have reiterated the contents of Ext.P4. The respondents also produced a report of the Superintendent CHC Mayyanad wherein it is reported that, in his inquiry, he could not collect any evidence regarding the birth of 1st petitioner in the residence No. 169 in Ward No.7 of Mayannad Grama Panchayath. The 3rd respondent Municipality also filed a statement stating that no document are available with them regarding the registration of birth of the 1st petitioner.
3. I have heard Smt. S.K.Adhithyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.R Sasith the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri.M.K. Chandramohan Das the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
4. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request made by the 2nd petitioner to register the birth of the 1st petitioner. The specific case of the petitioners is that, the birth of the 1st petitioners took place in House No.169 in Ward No.7 of Mayyannad Panchayath where the relatives of the petitioners are residing. According to them, the delivery of the child was while the 3rd respondent made a visit in the said residence and as delivery took place before she could be taken to the hospital, there are no medical records to indicate the same. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced affidavits of two persons including the residence of the house referred to above, situated within the jurisdiction of Mayyannad Panchayath where the birth took place. The copies of the said affidavits are produced along with IA 2/204 as Exts. P5 and P6.
5. As per Section 8(1) of the R
The denial of a birth registration application was found to violate fundamental rights due to improper inquiry and failure to consider supporting affidavits.
Authorities must process delayed birth registration applications for pre-1969 births despite Act's 1969 commencement.
The verification required for delayed registration of birth under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 is the factum of the birth and not regarding the "date" on which the ....
The Registrar has a statutory duty under S.15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to correct erroneous entries in birth registers upon the production of credible evidence and a formal....
A magistrate is empowered to verify the correctness of birth or death, and the respondents were directed to issue the non-availability certificate if the birth claimed by the petitioner is not seen r....
The Court upheld the rejection of the application based on existing birth records in another jurisdiction, affirming the authority of the Panchayat.
Citizens may seek delayed registration of birth via prescribed application when original records are unavailable.
The central legal point established is that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, particularly Section 13(3), applies to past cases of unregistered births, and a restrictive interpretation....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.