The court recognized the right to correct a birth certificate multiple times if supported by genuine documentation.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“A) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records and proceedings leading up to the issuance of Exhibit P9 and quash the same.

B) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent consider Exhibit P7 application afresh and conduct proper enquiry as contemplated by law and take a decision correcting the name of the petitioner in Exhibit P1 birth Certificate of his daughter as Kanakaraj Ukkandan with a stipulated time with ntice to the petitioner;

C) pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

`D) allow the writ petition with cost to the petitioner.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 letter of the

1^st respondent declining the request made by the petitioner for correcting the petitioner’s name in the Birth Certificate of his daughter. It is submitted that in Ext.P1 Birth Certificate of the daughter of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner is shown as Kanaka Rajan Kedanhoth. But, the name of the petitioner is “Kanakaraj Ukkandan”, as evident by Exts.P2 to P4. When the petitioner noticed the difference in his name, he approached the

1^st respondent and requested for the correction of his name in Ext.P1, along with the required documents as evident by Ext.P7. But the same was rejected by Ext.P9 letter stating that he has already made a correction and there is no provision in the Act to correct the name again. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is the father of ‘Meghana K’. The petitioner, who is the father himself, comes before this Court stating that there is a mistake in the Birth Certificate of his daughter as far as his name is concerned. The same is rejected stating that second correction is not possible. I am of the considered opinion that, it is a genuine claim, not only to the petitioner, but to his daughter also. Moreover, in Manu K. Babu v. Registrar of Births and Deaths [ 2025 KHC OnLine 1765 ], observed that, there is no restriction on the number of corrections to be made in the Register of Births and Deaths, if the request is supported by bona fide records. This Court perused Exts.P2 to P4. The same would also show that the name of the petitioner is “Kanakaraj Ukkandan”. Therefore, that is to be corrected in the Birth Certificate. I think the prayer is to be allowed.

Hence, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner.

i) Ext.P9 is set aside.

ii) The 1^st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 application afresh and allow the same (if it is otherwise in order), within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.