Allowed¶8

Smt Bharathamma N v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025WP/5927/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

birth certificate name correction; Section 15 Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969; Rule 11 Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999; BBMP Health Officer (West) endorsement quashed; No.H.O(W)/PR/08/2019-20 dated 20.07.2019; mandamus to correct birth records; WP No. 5927 of 2023 (LB-BMP); Justice R. Nataraj; decided 28 October 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:43067

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned endorsement No.H.O(W)/PR/08/2019-20 dated 20.07.2019 quashed; respondent No.2 directed to reconsider the petitioner's case in the light of Section 15 of the Act, 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Rules, 1999 and, if satisfied that the names are wrongly mentioned, to correct the birth certificate within three months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶8

Smt Bharathamma N Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement No.H.O(W)/PR/08/2019-20 dated 20.07.2019 refusing correction of the names in the child's birth certificate, issued without reference to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Respondent No.2 is not bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's request for correction of the birth-certificate entries; Section 15 of the Act, 1969 provides for such correction.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

It is for the petitioner to establish that her name is 'Bharathamma N', her husband's name is 'K Prathap Reddy' and the child's name is 'Dhamini Reddy K'; respondent No.2, after being satisfied regarding the genuineness of the request, is bound to carry out the necessary correction in the birth certificate.

¶6

Key takeaways

Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 prescribes the procedure for conducting such a correction of an entry; respondent No.2 could not have blindly issued an endorsement rejecting the request and must have complied with Rule 11 of the Rules, 1999 and acted as per Section 15 of the Act, 1969.ratio¶7
If, upon reconsideration of the material placed before him, respondent No.2 is satisfied that the names of the petitioner, her husband and her child are wrongly mentioned in the birth certificate, he shall take necessary steps to correct the same, and such correction shall be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the mother challenging an endorsement dated 20.07.2019 (No.H.O(W)/PR/08/2019-20) of the Health Officer (West), BBMP refusing to correct the names of the child ('S.Dhamani'), mother ('Bharathi') and father ('Sathyanarayana Reddy') in the child's birth certificate issued on 30.05.2013. Holding that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 leaves the registering authority with jurisdiction to correct entries, and that Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 prescribes the procedure for such correction, the court found the blanket refusal unsustainable: the petitioner must establish the correct names, and once satisfied of the genuineness of the request the Health Officer is bound to effect the correction. The endorsement was quashed; respondent No.2 was directed to reconsider in light of Section 15 read with Rule 11 and to carry out any correction within three months of receiving a copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43067 WP No. 5927 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5927 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BHARATHAMMA N. W/O. PRATHAP REDDY K. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.99/1, CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA GARDEN, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE -560 064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA REDDY J., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE HEALTH OFFICER (WEST) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BHYAM PARK, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 055.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.07.2019 VIDE NO.H.O(W)/PR/08/2019-20 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:43067 WP No. 5927 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.H.O(W)/PR/08/2019-20, dated 20.07.2019 issued by respondent No.2 by which, he refused to correct the mistakes in the birth certificate of her daughter. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider her case and change the name of her daughter as 'DHAMINI REDDY K' instead of 'S.DHAMANI' and to change her name as 'BHARATHAMMA N' instead of 'Bharathi' and to change the name of her husband as 'K PRATHAP REDDY' instead of 'SATHYANARAYANA REDDY' in the birth certificate of her daughter and to issue a fresh birth certificate.

¶23

(i) The petitioner contends that she is married to K Prathap Reddy and they begot a baby girl on 06.06.2012 at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore. Respondent No.1 issued a birth certificate on 30.05.2013. In the said birth certificate, the name of the child was shown as 'S. Dhamani' and her mother's

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43067 WP No. 5927 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

name was mentioned as 'Bharathi' and her father's name was mentioned as 'Sathyanarayana Reddy'.

¶27

(ii) She contends that the mother's name ought to have

¶28

been shown as 'BHARATHAMMA N and the father's name as 'K PRATHAP REDDY' and the child's name as 'Dhamini Reddy K'. However all the three names were wrongly mentioned. She contends that her name, her daughter's name and her husband's name are clearly mentioned in their respective Aadhaar cards. When she came to know of the mistake in the birth certificate, she submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 to correct it. She, her husband and the child gave a joint affidavit and requested to effect necessary corrections. However, respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 20.07.2019 refusing to change the mistakes in the birth certificate. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the endorsement.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner is wrongly shown as 'Bharathi' instead of 'Bharathamma N. While her husband's name is shown as 'Sathyanarayana Reddy' instead of 'K Prathap Reddy'

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43067 WP No. 5927 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

and the name of the child is shown as 'S.Dhamani' instead of 'Dhamini Reddy K'. He submits that the impugned endorsement is issued without reference to Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1969' for short) and therefore it is liable to be quashed.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted

¶34

that the name of the father was shown as 'Sathyanarayana Reddy' in the birth certificate. However, the petitioner wants the name of the father to be changed to 'K Prathap Reddy'. He therefore submits that there appears to be some confusion. Hence, submits that the petitioner ought to approach the Civil Court for necessary declaration.

¶35

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

A perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 20.07.2019 shows that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for correction of the entries made in the birth certificate. However, a perusal of

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43067 WP No. 5927 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Section 15 of the Act, 1969, shows that respondent No.2 is not bereft of the jurisdiction to entertain the request of the petitioner. However, it is for the petitioner to establish that her name is 'Bharathamma N' and that her husband's name is 'K Prathap Reddy' and child's name is 'Dhamini Reddy K'. Respondent No.2, after being satisfied regarding the genuineness of the request, is bound to carry out the necessary correction in the birth certificate .

¶40

A provision is also made in Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1999' for short) prescribing the procedure for conducting such an entry. Therefore, the respondent No.2 could not have blindly issued an endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner. On the contrary, he must have complied with the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of Rules, 1999 and must have acted as per Section 15 of the Act, 1969.

¶41

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed .

¶42

The impugned endorsement bearing No.H.O(W)/PR/08/2019-20 dated 20.07.2019 is quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:43067 WP No. 5927 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of Section

¶47

15 of the Act, 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Rules 1999.

¶48

If upon such consideration of the material placed

¶49

before him, respondent No.2 is satisfied that the names of the petitioner, her husband and her child are wrongly mentioned in the birth certificate issued to the petitioner's child, respondent No.2 shall take necessary steps to correct the same, and such correction shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Smt Bharathamma N v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bharathamma N v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subham International Social Service Trust Vs the Commissioner

Sri Robert Kennady Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M G Manjunath Vs Cheif Executive Officer

Ms Jayamani Vs the Commissioner

Ramanna Since Dead by Legal Representatives Vs Smt Neelavathamma (Husband'S Name Not Known)

Smt. Mallika Vs the Civic Commissioner