IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Sandepu Swaroopa and another - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 27398 of 2021
Decided On : 19-07-2023
Religion and Caste - Birth Certificate - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Article 25 of the Constitution of India - Ranjeet Suryakant Mohite (Dr) v. Union of India, 2014(6) Mh.LJ 395 - ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 10 SCC 1 - Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a married couple from different religions, sought a writ of mandamus to declare their child's status of religion and caste as 'no religion' and 'no caste' in the birth certificate, as they did not want to compel their child to mention a particular religion against their will. The respondents' inaction in addressing their repeated representations led to the filing of the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners have the right to claim that their child does not belong to any religion or caste, as guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the evolving nature of the law and the duty of the State to respect the citizens' rights and dignity.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' right to declare their child's status of religion and caste as 'no religion' and 'no caste' in the birth certificate, and the inaction of the respondents in addressing their representations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners have the right not to specify the religion or caste in the birth certificate, as guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the duty of the State to respect the citizens' rights and dignity, and the evolving nature of the law to adapt to the changing needs of the society.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, directing the respondents to provide a column for 'no religion' and 'no caste' in the online application format for registering the birth of the petitioners' son, by virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were granted the right to claim that their child does not belong to any religion or caste. No costs were awarded.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
2. Sri M. Venkanna, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are wife and husband and their marriage was a love marriage. They belong to two different religions. The 1st petitioner is B.Sc., B.Ed. Graduate working as Journalist in “Nava Telangana” and the 2nd petitioner is a postgraduate with M.A.B.Ed. and she is also a writer and founder member of Osmania University Research Scholars Forum since 2013. Presently, she is working as Editor of “Campus Voice”. It is submitted that the petitioners’ son born on 23.03.2019 and was named as Evan Rudea. When they wanted to apply for birth certificate, they found that it is must to fill the religious status of the child in column No.9 without which the Application is incomplete and the same cannot be presented. Under the religion column, the options given are 1) Hindu, 2) Islam, 3) Christian and the 4th one is ‘other religions’. “Any other” option also prescribed under Religion column only, but there is no option for non-religious practitioners or identity. It is submitted that India is a secular country and by virtue of these applications, they cannot compel a citizen to mention that he / she belongs to a particular religion against their will and wish by virtue of on line platform. It is submitted that the petitioners have made representations to all respondents and requested them to consider the request and give them a provision to claim the child status as non-religious and no caste. As this being an on line registration application format which will decide for all future purposes such as school admission certificate, etcetera, he could not fill his son’s on line application format and did not get the birth certificate till now. Learned counsel submits that in 2011 August 14, the petitioners married without any religious rituals of any religion to which both of them belong respecting one another’s belief, they want to live a democratic way of life. They want to bring the children without any religious formalities or caste practices as a non-believer family at their home or outside home. They wanted to nurture and nourish him in such a way that they cherish a true democratic and humanistic values in their day to day life. They have promised the child in their letter written to him which was filed with this affidavit in the material papers which speaks their outlook towards life. It is submitted that when the petiti
Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Ranjeet Suryakant Mohite (Dr) v. Union of India
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, including the right to declare non-belief in any religion, but requires quantifiable evidence for public interest claims.
Individuals have a Constitutional right under Article 25 to be recognized as not belonging to any caste or religion, promoting equality and non-discrimination.
Individuals have the constitutional right to change their religion, and official records must be updated to reflect such changes, irrespective of the absence of specific provisions.
The court affirmed the right to change one's religion and name in official records under Rule 3(1) of KER 1959, supported by constitutional protections.
A child of a forward caste father must demonstrate deprivation and upbringing solely by the mother from a backward community to qualify for a caste certificate based on the mother's status.
The presumption of caste inheritance from the father is strong but not conclusive; genuine circumstances must support claims for caste certificates.
The presumption of caste based on the father's status is strong but can be rebutted if the child proves they were raised solely by the mother from a backward community.
Denial of registration of marriage of a foreign national amounts to violation of Right to Equality (Article-14). The respondents cannot refuse to register the marriage of the petitioners only on the ....
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.