SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 389819

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
HAYAAN GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS AND ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR – Respondent
WP 36142/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 36142 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

HAYAAN GOWDA

S/O. LATE ASHWIN B R, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,

R/AT. NO.25, DOOR NO.151, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,

KODAGITIRUMALAPURA,

VTC, KODAGI THIRUMALAPURA,

POST, HESARAGHATTA LAKE

BANGALORE-560089

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER

NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER

A.C. TEJASWINI

W/O LATE ASHWIN B.R. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

R/AT. NO.25, DOOR NO.151, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,

KODAGITIRUMALAPURA,

Digitally signed

by VTC, KODAGI THIRUMALAPURA,

MARKONA HALLI

POST HESARAGHATTA LAKE

RAMU PRIYA

Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560089

COURT OF

…PETITIONER

KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. HARISH SHIRALAKOPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS AND

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS,

7TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAYA MAIN TOWER,

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (STATISTIC)

RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE BBMP, BENGALURU-560098.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT "SANKE.SA.NI.(SAM) RARANAVA/PR/1197/2025/26" DATED 19.11.2025 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.¸À.¤(¸Á)/gÁgÁ£ÀªÀ/¦.Dgï/197/2025-26 dated 19.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 refusing to change his name in the birth certificate. He has also sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider his representation dated 25.10.2025 and change his name as per the affidavit.

2. The petitioner was born on 08.01.2023 at Atreum hospital, Bengaluru. When the birth was reported for registration, the petitioner's name was registered as 'Hayaan Gowda' and the same was entered in the birth certificate issued on 05.04.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representation dated 28.10.2025 for change of his name as 'Hemanth A.R.'. Respondent No.2 however, issued an endorsement dated 19.11.2025 stating that such change is not permissible under Section 15 of the Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an identical issue was considered in W.P.No.6370/2024, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court after examining Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, held that when no name is furnished at the time of registration of birth, the parent is entitled, within an outer limit of 12 months from the date of registration, to furnish the name of the child and ensure that it is entered in the birth register. However, in cases where the name of the child is already furnished at the time of birth, there is no provision either under the Births and Deaths Act, 1969 or under the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 which provide for change of name. This Court also noticed the recommendation made by the Law Commission of Karnataka in its 24th Report suggesting amendment to the Act and Rules, which is not acted upon by the registering authorities. In the said circumstances, a Coordinate Bench quashed a similar endorsement and directed correction of the name of the child in the register of births and issuance of a corrected birth certificate.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the facts of this case are concerned on all forms by the judgment of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court, referred supra.

5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed on similar lines as in W.P.No.6370/2024. The impugned endorsement dated 19.11.2025 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed. The res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top