Allowed

Smt. Pooja. B. R. v. the Chief Officer and Registrar of Birth and Death

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2026WP/37712/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnata High Court allowed a writ petition by a child and her guardians to correct spelling errors in her birth certificate. The Court relied on a previous decision holding that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act permits rectification of errors in parents' names as collateral entries and directed the Registrar to issue a corrected certificate.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed. Quashing of endorsement. Mandamus directing respondents to carry out necessary corrections and issue an amended birth certificate.

Smt. Pooja. B. R. Vs the Chief Officer and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9750 WP No. 37712 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.37712 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. POOJA B.R. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O MR. VASIM PASHA,

¶10

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MARYAM AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, D/O. SMT. POOJA B.R. AND MR. VASIM PASHA BOTH ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.32, NAIDU NAGAR, NARASIMHARAJU MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 007 REP. BY HER MINOR GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. POOJA B.R., THE FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶12

SRI. VASIM PASHA S/O SRI. ABDUL RAHIM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.32, KESARE NAIDU NAGAR NARASIMHARAJU MOHALLA MYSURU-570 007.

¶13

AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17.02.2026.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:9750 WP No. 37712 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE CHIEF OFFICER AND REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH OFFICE OF THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHANNARAYAPATNA-573 116.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. PAWAN CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.11.2025 AT NO. MUNIC.ASHA.C.R.:32:2025-26 AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT/CHIEF OFFICER, AND REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH/THE RESPONDENT HEREIN, ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

"(a) Call for the records pertaining to Impugned Endorsement dated 24.11.2025 at Annexure A. issued by the respondent.

¶29

(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, Direction or any order quashing the Impugned Endorsement dated 24.11.2025 at No.MUNIC. ASHA.C.R.:32:2025-26 at Annexure-A issued by the Respondent/Chief Officer, and Registrar of Birth & Death/the respondent herein.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:9750 WP No. 37712 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

(c) Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction or Order directing the respondent carry out the amendment of Birth certificate of 2^nd petitioner and issue fresh corrected Birth Certificate as contemplated under Section 15 of Registration Of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969.

¶34

(d) Grant such other order of direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶35

Petitioner no.1-Pooja B.R., was married to petitioner No.3 Vasim Pasha on 29.04.2018. Out of their wedlock, petitioner no.2 was born to both of them in pursuance of which intimation of birth was given on 15.06.2019 showing the date of birth as 21.05.2019. All the necessary documents were also submitted along with the said documents. Petitioner no.1 claims that she continued to retain a maiden name and the same was informed to the respondents. A birth certificate having been issued, the name of the daughter i.e. petitioner no. 2 was wrongly shown as ‘Mariyam’ instead of ‘Maryam’ and her name has been shown as Umnakulsam. Though in the application which had been submitted for the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:9750 WP No. 37712 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

registration of birth, the name of the mother had been shown as Pooja B.R., in the certificate which came to be issued, her name had been shown as Umnakulsam. There was also a mistake in the spelling of the name of the father. Instead of Vasim Pasha, it was printed as Vaseem Pasha. It is in that background that a representation had been made on 11.11.2025 again enclosing all the documents seeking for correction of the mistakes as pointed out above. The said representation was rejected by endorsement dated 24.11.2025 on the ground that the respondents did not have the power to carry out such corrections and in that background the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶40

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjib Das and another vs. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:9750 WP No. 37712 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

another¹ has come to a categorical conclusion that the Registrar of Births and Deaths could carry out the necessary corrections on an application being submitted. Paras 7 and 8 thereof are reproduced

¶45

hereunder for easy reference:

¶46

7. The facts are undisputed that the correct spelling of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is ‘Sanjib Das’ and ‘Bina Das’. The said fact is supported by documents that has been produced at Annexure - B2 to B9. The Indemnity Bond has also been produced stating the details as are relevant to enable consideration of the request of the petitioners.

¶47

The endorsement states that the entries cannot be corrected as the documents supporting such correction of error are not sufficient. It is also the petitioners' contention that he has been told that power is not available under the Act to rectify the errors. This aspect of the matter requires to be addressed to provide ensure finality to the addressing the grievance of the petitioners.

¶48

Insofar as Section 15 of the Act is concerned, it is clear that the Registrar is conferred with the power to correct any error in ‘form or substance’ as regards any entry of birth or death in the Register. The contention that correction of entry is only as regards the name of the person which is subject matter of the entry relating to the person who has been bom, cannot be accepted. Any entry other than the name of the person who is bom, which may find a place in the Register would be an entry capable of being corrected in terms of the pov/er conferred under Section 15 of the Act. The names of the parents of the person who is bom are also relevant entries and could be stated to be ancillary to the main entry i.e., the name of the person who is bom. Hence, the power of Section 15 of the Act would extend to rectifying the entries other than that of the person who is bom which is found in the

¶49

1 ILR 2019 KAR 2606

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9750 WP No. 37712 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

register. The nature of correction that is sought, being a spelling error would also be an error that could be described to be an error in form as referred to under Section 15 of the Act. Rule 11(4) is also clear and provides for rectification of the entry if it is found to be ‘erroneous in substance’ and could be made in the manner prescribed.

¶53

8. Clearly in the facts of the case the nature of error that has been complained of is one that should be rectified in terms of power conferred under Section 15 read with Rule 11(4). As regards the contention of the respondent that the application filed is belated, it is to be noted that in the absence of any restrictions as regards to the time within which such application can the statute made, it would not be appropriate to read into the statute any restriction for making an application for correcting such entry. In fact in contradistinction to Section 13 of the Act no such restriction in terms of time for making an application for correction of erroneous entries is found.

¶54

In that view of the matter, considering that necessary documents have been produced by the petitioners indicating the name of petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 to be as claimed in the application for correction and that both petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3 have indicated the name of the petitioner no.2 to be ‘Maryam’, I am of the considered opinion that the said application would have to be considered by the respondent and

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:9750 WP No. 37712 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

necessary corrections to be made. As such, I pass

¶59

the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶62

ii) A certiorari is issued. The endorsement dated 24.11.2025 at Annexure-A issued by the Respondent/Chief Officer and Registrar of Birth and Death is quashed.

¶63

iii) A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to carry out the necessary corrections as requested by the petitioners and issue an amended birth certificate of second petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

iv) In the event of there being any further documents required by the respondent, a request could be made to the petitioner which shall be so furnished by the petitioner.

¶65

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶66

PRS

¶67

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 51

Smt. Pooja. B. R. v. the Chief Officer and Registrar of Birth and Death

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja. B. R. v. the Chief Officer and Registrar of Birth and Death

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ramesh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Sathish M.T. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt H Manjula Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. a.P.Govindappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Radhakrishna Rai Vs State of Karnataka

Shree Parvathamma Narasimhaiah Charitable Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka