Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 14375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. PrachchhAK, J
Renukaben Indravadan Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16413 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jaydeep H Sindhi
For the Respondents: Nikunj Kanara, Deepak P Sanchela
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969: S.15
Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2004: R.11
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the court seeking a writ to quash an order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Sub Registrar, Navsari Mahanagarpalika. The petitioner sought to correct her birth date in the birth register from 05.03.1961 to 06.03.1961, citing that her School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar Card, and Passport all reflected the latter date. The respondent authority rejected the application, stating a lack of jurisdiction to carry out the correction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the entry in the birth register was prima facie erroneous. It observed that the respondent had simply refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by the statute. Relying on established precedents, the court held that the authority is duty-bound to exercise its powers judiciously in accordance with the law.
Issues: Whether the Sub Registrar possesses the jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2004, to correct a birth entry that is erroneous in substance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules provide a complete mechanism for the correction of clerical, formal, or substantial errors in birth and death registers. No guidelines or circulars can divest the registrar of the statutory duties and powers prescribed under the Act to correct entries that are erroneous in form or substance.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2004 seeking following reliefs:
“[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 06/10/2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 and further be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 to correct its Birth Register
[C] by showing the petitioner's correct birth date "06/03/1961" and thereby further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to issue the fresh Birth Certificate;
[D] Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ad interim relief by directing the respondent to correct its Birth Register by showing the petitioner's correct birth date and other required correct missing details and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to issue the fresh Birth Certificate;
[E] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of Para (C);
[F] Such other and further relief as may be deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.”
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the this petition is filed by the petitioner for correction of her birth date mentioned in the Extract of the Birth Register. That, the respondent no. 2 is denying the correction in the birth register maintained by respondent no. 2 under the Gujarat Registration of Birth and Death Act along with the Rules framed thereunder. That, the petitioner had made representation to respondent no. 2 that she was born in early morning hours of 06.03.1961, shortly after midnight but unfortunately, the entry in the Extract of the Birth Register incorrectly reflects the date as 05.03.1961. That, in other documents including School Leaving Certificate, Aadhar Card and the Passport, etc the birth date of the petitioner was recorded as 06.03.1961. That, the petitioner had filed an application dated 17.09.2025 before respondent no.2, under section 15 of Registration of Birth and Death Act whereby the application was rejected by the authority vide communication/order dated 06.10.2025 and refused to carry out correction as mentioned above in the Register because of want of jurisdiction.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned communication/order dated 06.10.2025 passed by Sub Registrar, Navsari Mahanagarpalika, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials available on record.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Sindhi has submitted that the impugned communication/order passed by the Mahanagarpalika is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the authority has erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction and that, in view of section 15 read with Rule 11 , the respondent has not considered the ratio laid down by this Court in Nitaben N Patel reported in 2008(1) GLH 556 wherein this Court has held that the authority is empowered to correct the Birth Certificate by exercising powers envisaged under section 15 read with Rule 11 . Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Sindhi has urged that the impugned communication/order passed by the authority is required to be quash
