Back
MP High Court Quashes Birth Certificate Cancellation of Mahakumbh Fame Woman Over Violation
The has set aside an order cancelling the birth certificate of a young woman who rose to fame during the Mahakumbh 2025, holding that she was never given a hearing before her date of birth was altered. Justice Gajendra Singh directed the municipal authority to decide the father's application afresh after providing the woman an .
The Mahakumbh Moment That Changed Everything
The woman, identified in court records as 'M', travelled to Prayagraj with her family to earn a livelihood during the Mahakumbh 2025. There, she underwent an extraordinary transformation – the court noted she
"transitioned from a street vendor into a national celebrity and an aspiring bollywood actress."
Her parents subsequently applied for a birth certificate, stating her date of birth as
, and asserting she was born at home. The certificate was issued on
after the prescribed procedure.
On the basis of that date, she attained majority on , and solemnized her marriage with her co-star (petitioner no.2) on in Kerala. The marriage was registered under the .
A Marriage, a Dispute, and a Changed Birth Certificate
After the marriage, her father (respondent no.3) approached the Block Medical Officer at the , claiming he had learned from elderly relatives that his daughter was actually born at the hospital. Hospital records showed a female child born to his wife on at 5:50 PM. Based on this, the Chief Municipal Officer cancelled the earlier birth entry and corrected the date of birth to , making her a minor at the time of marriage.
An FIR was registered against the husband on at , initially under (akin to ), and later with additional provisions including , the , and the . The couple approached the , which granted them interim protection from arrest on .
Why the Court Stepped In: and Violation of
The High Court examined the significant of altering the woman's date of birth. Changing it from 2008 to 2009 would postpone her majority by nearly two years, affecting her right to vote, her capacity to open and operate bank accounts independently, her ability to enter into contracts, and exposing her partner to criminal prosecution. The court observed:
"Any restraint, even for a temporary period of two years deprives the petitioner no.1 from the guaranteed under ."
The court further noted that the father
"moved earth and heaven only after Petitioner No.1 exercised her right of personal choice and chose to marry Petitioner No.2."
No Hearing, No Justice: The Principle
The core issue was that the woman, being directly affected by the correction, was never informed or given an opportunity to be heard. The respondents argued that only requires intimation to the person who gave information under – in this case, the father. But the court held:
"When the petitioner no.1 is the aggrieved then intimation only to the father does not satisfy the requirement of ' '."
Citing the decision in , the court reiterated that the rule of enforces the and applies not only to but also to affecting a party prejudicially, unless expressly excluded by law.
No Bar Where Violated
The state and the father raised preliminary objections that the petition involved disputed questions of fact and that an existed under . The court rejected this, noting that violation of is a recognized exception to the rule of , relying on and .
What Happens Next?
The court quashed the Chief Municipal Officer's order dated and directed respondent no.5 (the municipal authority) to decide the father's application afresh after affording effective hearing to petitioner no.1. Importantly, the court clarified that it has not adjudicated on her actual age, the validity of her marriage, or the forgery allegations – all those questions remain open for the authority's fresh consideration.
