Public records have legal presumptions of correctness and should be prioritized over other evidentiary documents for birth registration purposes.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of an application for delayed registration of her birth in the Register of Births maintained in the 3rd respondent Panchayat. The petitioner's claim is that she was born on 21.5.1975, as the daughter of late Sri C.George and late Smt.Marykutty. She studied at Government High School, Koodal, Murinjakal P.O. and the date of birth entered in the school records is 21.5.1975. Exhibit P1 which is the relevant page of the SSLC book evidences the above fact. Exhibit P9 Aadhaar card issued to the petitioner by the Government of India, Exhibit P10 Identity card issued by the Election Commission of India to the petitioner, Exhibit P11 PAN card issued by the Income Tax Department to the petitioner, and Exhibit P12 Passport issued to the petitioner, show her date of birth as 21.5.1975. However, the fact remains that her birth was not registered with the Panchayat, which is stated to be due to the ignorance of her parents. The petitioner was married on 29.11.2007 and Exhibit P2 certificate of marriage shows her date of birth as 21.5.1975. Exhibit P3 certificate of marriage issued by Immanuel Mar Thoma Church, Pathanapuram also shows the date of birth as 21.5.1975. The petitioner submits that, contrary to the above records a baptism certificate which was issued by the parish priest at St.Mary's Malankara Catholic Church, Vakayar, on 6.10.2018, shows the date of the petitioner's baptism as 22.7.1975 and her date of birth as

9.5.1975.

2. The application for delayed registration was submitted on

7.1.2021. The application was initially enquired through the Village Officer, who submitted a report on 29.1.2021, stating that the petitioner was born on 21.5.1975. The Secretary of the Panchayat had issued a non-availability certificate on 5.1.2021, stating that the birth has not been registered in the Office of the Panchayat.

nd Initially, on 20.2.2021, the 2 respondent by Ext.P6 order, granted sanction to the Registrar of Birth and Deaths at the Pramadom Grama Panchayat to register the birth event of the petitioner as on 21.5.1975, as per Rule 9(3) of the Kerala Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 1999. But later, on 3.3.2021, the Revenue Divisional Officer, cancelled Exhibit P6 order as per Exhibit P7 order, which says that on subsequent enquiry, it was noticed that the documents submitted by the petitioner are wrongly created and hence seen to be not acceptable. Referring to the Baptism Certificate, Exhibit P7 order concludes that the petitioner was born on 9.5.1975 and hence, her birth cannot be registered with the date 21.5.1975. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P13 representation before the 1st nd respondent stating that Exhibit P6 order was cancelled by the 2 respondent on the basis of wrong information given by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and hence Exhibit P7 order may be reconsidered and permission may be granted to register her nd death as on 21.5.1975. By Exhibit P14, the 2 respondent has once again rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. The order does not say that the 1st respondent had nd forwarded the representation to the 2 respondent and directed the

2nd respondent to pass orders.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent as directed by this Court. In paragraph 4 of the statement it is stated that on receipt of Exhibit P6 order, the 3rd respondent had submitted a true extract of the Baptism register to the 2nd respondent and noting the error, Exhibit P7 was issued. However, the counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent on instructions submits that the Panchayat has never given any such request or information to the 2nd respondent. The statement further states that the entry in the school records and certain other records cannot be considered and the basic record to be considered is the baptism certificate. It is stated in the statement that the District Collector had forwarded the representation submitted by the peti