The court emphasizes the need for clerical corrections in birth records to ensure uniformity across official documents despite procedural deadlines.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Ramachandran ..Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai District.

2.The Registrar (Birth and Death), Madurai Corporation Office, Madurai District.

3.The City Health Officer, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Tallakulam, Madurai – 625 002.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned communication dated 29.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to incorporate petitioner son's name as Srinivasan Ramachandran in the birth certificate dated 30.04.1990 based on the his application dated 17.09.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.S.Vidhyasagar Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned communication dated 29.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to incorporate the petitioner’s son’s name as “Srinivasan Ramachandran” in the birth certificate dated 30.04.1990, based on his application dated

17.09.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.

3. The petitioner states that his son’s birth was registered in 1984 without a name, though he was later named “Srinivasan Ramachandran”, which appears consistently in all his official records. To correct the omission, the petitioner applied on 17.09.2025 with all necessary documents, but the 3rd respondent rejected the request without properly considering the amended G.O.(Ms.) No.415 dated 27.09.2021, which permits incorporation of names even for earlier births. He contends that the rejection is arbitrary and contrary to Section 15 of the RBD Act, the Tamil Nadu Rules, and binding judgments. The corrected birth certificate is urgently needed as his son is employed abroad and is facing difficulties due to the discrepancy.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would rely on Rule 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, which prescribes a period of 12 months from the date of registration for furnishing the name of the child. If the name is not furnished within the said period, the Rule permits furnishing the name within 15 years from the date of registration for births registered after the commencement of the Rules. The said 15-year period was extended by five years vide G.O.(Ms.) No.252 dated 18.10.2016, from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2019. Subsequently, vide G.O.(Ms.) No.415 dated 27.09.2021, the third and fourth provisos to Rule 10(1) were inserted, extending the time for a further five years from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2024. It is therefore contended that the period for furnishing the name has expired and that ratification of inclusion of names in the birth register for the period from 17.11.2020 to

26.09.2021 does not arise.

5. I have considered the rival submissions of both sides.

6. Though the time limit contemplated under Rule 10(1) for incorporating the name has technically expired, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents shall empathetically consider the request of the petitioner, especially in light of the consistent public records establishing the correct name of the petitioner’s son and the fact that the correction sought is purely clerical in nature, intended only to ensure uniformity across official documents.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of