IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4942 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PURNIMA S W/O SRINIVAS KUMAR U.A, AGED 55 YEARS NO. 11/1, 18TH A CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD, SAMPANGIRAM NAGARA BENGALURU - 560 027.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.S. RAGHU PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001, Digitally signed by VARSHA N REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, 7TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAYA MAIN TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPPANNA BELIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 06.09.2025 AND 15.11.2025, AT ANNX-F AND F1 AND ISSUE BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH DATE OF BIRTH AS 30.01.1972 TO THE PETITIONERS.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

2. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.2.

3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no 2 to consider the representation dated 06.09.2025 and 15.11.2025 at ANNEXURE-F and F1 and issue birth certificate with date of birth as 30.01.1972 to the petitioner b. Such other writ or directions as this Hon'ble court deem fit in the nature of the case.

c. Direct the respondent to pay costs of the petition to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent No.2 seeking alteration of her recorded date of birth from 30.01.1970 to 30.01.1972, thereby reducing her age by two years. The prayer is, in substance, for substitution of the year of birth as entered in the statutory register maintained under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

5. At the outset, it must be noted that the entry relating to date of birth in the register maintained under the Act is a statutory entry. Such entry carries with it a presumption of correctness unless altered in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The statutory framework governing corrections is contained in Section 22 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The said provision empowers the Registrar to correct or cancel entries in certain limited circumstances, namely where it is proved that an entry is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made. However, the power of correction contemplated therein has consistently been understood to apply to clerical mistakes, transcriptional errors, accidental slips, or errors apparent on the face of the record.

6. A request seeking alteration of the year of birth by two years cannot, by any reasonable interpretation, be categorised as a mere clerical or typographical error. It is not a case where digits have been inadvertently interchanged, nor where a copying mistake has occurred in transcribing the entry from source material. What is sought is a substantive modification of a foundational personal data, which may have civil consequences across multiple domains, including service matters, succession, contractual capacity, and statutory eligibility.

7. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is primarily supervisory and corrective in nature. A writ of mandamus issues to compel performance of a statutory duty where such duty is clear, unequivocal, and ministerial. It does not lie to compel an authority to undertake adjudication of disputed questions of fact, nor can it be invoked to bypass statutory procedures or convert the writ court int