Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N S Sanjay Gowda, J
MASTER ADHRITH BHAT – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 6370 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. SINCHANA M.R
For the Respondents: SRI. K.B.PRASAD HEGDE.
Lack of legislative provision for the change of name in birth records creates undue hardship; court urges amendment to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act.
Headnote:(A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Sections 14 and 15 - Change of name in the Birth Certificate - The petitioner’s request to change the name from Adhrith Bhat to Shrijith Bhat was denied by the Registrar due to lack of provision in the Act allowing such change - The court found no error in the registrar’s decision, but highlighted the gap in the law regarding name changes, suggesting amendments to prevent hardship. (Paras 4, 15, 35, 36)
(B) Administrative Powers - The Registrar holds authority to correct erroneous entries within the framework of existing legal provisions, emphasizing the necessity for a formal process for name changes in birth records absent in current legislation. (Paras 13, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's parents initially registered the child's name as Adhrith Bhat but later wished to change it to Shrijith Bhat due to astrological reasons. The Registrar rejected the change as there was no provision in the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Registrar's denial and directed the name change, identifying the present difficulties due to the lack of law addressing name modifications post-registration.
Issues: The central issue was whether a name registered at birth can be changed, and the adequacy of the law in addressing such requests.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that without a legislative provision to amend names once recorded, the existing barriers must be addressed by the legislature to prevent unnecessary hardships for individuals seeking to change their names.
Result: Writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to name change refusal (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of the law governing birth registration (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. barriers to changing registered names (Para 14 , 20 , 22) |
| 4. court urges legislative reform for name changes (Para 15 , 26 , 35) |
ORAL ORDER
1. Master Adhrith Bhat, the petitioner herein, is challenging the endorsement issued by the Registrar of Births, by which the Registrar has refused the request of the petitioner to change his name in the Birth Certificate.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that his parents had requested the Registrar of Births and Deaths to enter his name as Adhrith Bhat, but subsequently, they were informed that his name was astrologically inappropriate, and hence they made a request on 04.11.2023 to change his name as SHRIJITH BHAT
3. However, the Registrar of Births has refused the said request on the ground that there is no provision under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short, ‘the Act’).
4. In order to consider the correctness of this endorsement, a brief review of the relevant provisions is necessary.
5. In the year 1969, the Registration of Births and Deaths Act was enacted to provide for regulation of the registration of births and deaths and for matters connected therewith.
6. Chapter III of the Act relates to the Registration of Births and Deaths and Sections 8 and 9 of the Act mandated the requirement of the persons specified therein to register births and deaths. Section 10 casts a duty on persons to notify births and deaths and also to certify cause of death.
7. Section 11 of the Act requires the informant to sign the register, while Section 12 of the Act casts a responsibility on the Registrar to furnish the extract of the registration free of charge to the informant.
8. Section 13 of the Act deals with the delayed registration of births and deaths.
9. Section 14 of the Act pertains to registration of name of child, which is relevant for this case, reads as follows:
“14. Registration of name of child.—
Where the birth of any child has been registered without a name, the parent or guardian of such child shall within the prescribed period give information regarding the name of the child to the Registrar either orally or in writing and thereupon the Registrar shall enter such name in the register and initial and date the entry.”
10. As could be seen from the above, whenever the birth of a child is registered without a name, the parent or guardian of the child is required to give information within the prescribed time regarding the name of the child to the Registrar either orally or in writing and the Registrar thereafter is required to enter such name in the Register and initial and date the entry.
11. In this case, it appears that the name of the petitioner was furnished by his parents at the time of registration itself on 27.02.2021 and hence, the name had been entered in the register as Adhrith Bhat.
12. However, it appears that thereafter, the petitioner’s parents had desired to name the petitioner as Shrijith Bhat for astrological reasons and in order to change the name in the Birth Certificate, the petitioner’s father submitted an application dated 04.11.2023 to the Registrar of Births and Deaths, who in turn has issued an endorsement dated 04.11.2023 refusing to entertain the claim stating that no corrections could be made in the original Register in view of Section 15 of the Act and Rules 11(1) and (7) of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Rules’), which relates to the Correction or Cancellation of an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths.
13. Section 15 of the Act provides for correction or cancellation of an entry in the register of births and deaths and the same reads as follows: “ 15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths.—If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is e
