A birth certificate can be amended to remove a father's name upon mutual consent, emphasizing the child's right to privacy.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s application for removal of the name of the father, stated as 'Rajesh Mundayil, from Exhibit P1 Birth Certificate of Adarsh P.P, the son of the petitioner, and to carry out necessary corrections in the erroneous entries therein.

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to remove the name of the father, stated as 'Rajesh Mundayil, from Exhibit P1 Birth Certificate of Adarsh P.P, the son of the petitioner.

iii. grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. To dispense with producing English translation of documents in vernacular languages."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the mother of a minor male child namely, Adarsh P.P., born on 29.11.2008. The birth of the said child was registered with the Payyannur Municipality, Kannur District, Kerala. In the birth certificate of the child (Ext.P1), the name of the father is erroneously recorded as ‘Rajesh Mundayil’. The petitioner admitted that the petitioner subsequently married Rajesh Mundayil and they were residing together as husband and wife. However, the petitioner concedes that she married Rajesh Mundayil when she was pregnant. According to the petitioner, the entry of Rajesh Mundayil as the father of the child in Ext.P1 is factually incorrect and was made erroneously. Hence, the petitioner sought to rectify the erroneous entry regarding the name of her son’s father in the birth certificate. The petitioner and her former husband, Rajesh Mundayil, whose name was mistakenly entered as the father of the child at the time of birth registration, are now separated and have obtained a divorce decree. At the time of separation, both parties executed a written agreement as evident by Ext.P2, in which it was mutually acknowledged that Rajesh Mundayil is not the biological father of the petitioner’s son, Adarsh P.P. The said agreement also records the consent of Rajesh Mundayil to remove his name from the birth certificate of the child. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner submitted an application before the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Payyannur Municipality, seeking to remove the father’s name in the birth certificate of her son. However, the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Payyannur Municipality rejected the said application, as evident by Ext.P3. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. This Court issued notice to the 3^rd respondent. But, there is no appearance for the 3^rd respondent. That itself shows that the 3^rd respondent has no objection in removing his name from the birth certificate of the minor child. Moreover, in Ext.P2 agreement also, the 3^rd respondent agreed that he has no objection in removing his name from the birth certificate of the minor child.

5. The next question to be decided is whether the father’s name can be removed from the birth certificate without substituting it with another person’s name.

6. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submitted that the same is not possible in the light of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule

11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999.

7. This Court considered a similar point in XXXX and Another v. Registrar of Births and Deaths, Pathanamthitta Municipality and Others [ 2022 (5) KHC 72 ]. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

“18. From the above discussions, it is clear that it is the right of a person to inc