Allowed

Saji Chacko v. Registrar of Births and Deaths

Kerala HC7 Mar 2023WP(C)/3651/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the Registrar to correct a wrong name entry in the petitioner's birth certificate. The Court held that the Registrar cannot demand school records if the error is obvious, as the Act requires satisfaction of the Registrar regarding the error rather than strict proof via specific documents. The circular was deemed unsustainable against the Act.

What did the court decide?

The objection raised in the reply is set aside, and the Registrar is directed to process the application and make necessary changes within two weeks.

Saji Chacko Vs Registrar of Births and Deaths — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3651 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAJI CHACKO, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, MAPPILAKUNNEL (H), NARAKAKKANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685602

¶8

BY ADV G.VIDYA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, MARIYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685604

¶11

2 MARIYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685604

¶12

BY ADV JAISON JOSEPH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 2

¶15

VIJU ABRAHAM,J

¶16

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above writ petition is filed for a direction

¶20

to the respondent to correct the wrong entry of name

¶21

of the petitioner in Ext.P1 birth certificate within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

The name of the petitioner has been entered in

¶23

Ext.P1 birth certificate as Chacko instead of the

¶24

name of the petitioner, Saji Chacko. Petitioner submits that Ext.P2 application for correction of date of birth was submitted and Ext.P3 is the copy of the receipt dated 18.1.2023 evidencing submission of Ext.P2. Along with the application the petitioner

¶25

produced all the relevant documents to prove his

¶26

name as Saji Chacko. The petitioner also obtained

¶27

the one and same certificate from the Village Officer, Thankamani Village and the same was also produced along with the application. On receipt of

¶28

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 3

¶29

Ext.P2 application, Ext.P4 reply was given by the 1^st

¶30

respondent, wherein the petitioner was informed that

¶31

the petitioner should produce school certificate or

¶32

the certified copy of the admission register and only on production of the said document further proceedings on Ext.P2 application could be

¶33

initiated. On the basis of the said instructions in Ext.P2 the petitioner has approached the school authorities for obtaining a copy of the admission register and Ext.P5 copy of admission register was

¶34

given to the petitioner, but in Ext.P5 copy of admission register the name of the petitioner as well as his father is wrongly shown, i.e., the name of the petitioner is shown as Jees James and the name of the father is shown as James. When the petitioner made a request before the school authorities for correcting the school register, the school authorities demanded production of a birth

¶35

certificate. Ext.P6 is the “one and the same

¶36

certificate” issued by the Village Officer,

¶37

Thankamani wherein it is stated Saji Chacko

¶38

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 4

¶39

mentioned in Aadhar Card, Pan Card and marriage certificate and Saji in ration card, election ID card and bank pass book and Chacko shown in the birth certificate is one and the same person. Petitioner submits that petitioner's son is 70% mentally retarded. In view of the wrong entry in

¶40

the birth certificate, the family is unable to get

¶41

the benefit due to the child. Petitioner has produced Ext.P7 ID card to substantiate the contention that his child is a person with

¶42

disability.

¶43

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st

¶44

respondent wherein relying on Ext.R1(a) circular

¶45

dated 10.5.2017 and in clause 9.6 of the said circular it is stated that if an application is filed by the parents for correcting the name, Registrar can allow the application on enquiry, if at the time of birth, nick name is entered in the birth register. On the basis of the application by the parents correction can be made only once before the child is admitted to the school and as per

¶46

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 5

¶47

Clause 9.7 of the circular if the name is

¶48

erroneously entered in the birth register at the time of birth registration or before the child is admitted to the school, correction can be made on

¶49

the basis of the school records on the joint application by the parents or on the basis of the application filed by the major child along with the affidavit stating the reasons therein and on receiving the compounding fee of Rs.50/- and since the petitioner could not produce the school records as requested in Ext.P4 the application could not be processed further. Clause No.9.7 of Ext.R1(a) circular only says that if the name of the person has been wrongly entered in the birth register if that person is a major he could make an application along with and affidavit stating the circumstances

¶50

in which such wrong entry was made in

¶51

the birth register and changes could be effected as provided in the school records. Admittedly, in the present case, the school admission register produced as Ext.P5 the name of the petitioner is wrongly

¶52

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 6

¶53

shown. Section 15 deals with correction or

¶54

cancellation of entry in the register of Birth and death and the said Section provides that if it is

¶55

proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or

¶56

substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation. Going by

¶57

Section 15 correction could be made only in

¶58

accordance with the procedure prescribed in the rules made by the State Government. The rules have been promulgated by the State as Kerala Registration of Birth Rules 1999 and Rule 11 speaks about the correction or cancellation of entry in the register

¶59

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 7

¶60

of birth and death, which mandates that if the Registrar is reported that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error as provided in Section 15 and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the State Government or the officer specified by it in this behalf. The rule further provides that if any person asserts that any

¶61

entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. The procedure to be followed in the matter of correction in the Register of birth and death has been detailed in Rule 11 of the Rules 1999. It is settled law that a circular

¶62

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 8

¶63

cannot over ride the the provisions of the Act and

¶64

the Rules. Rule 11 provides for a procedure to be

¶65

adopted in the matter of correction of entry in the register on birth and death. Section 15 speaks about the satisfaction of the Registrar regarding

¶66

the entry in the register on birth or death is erroneous in form or substance, or has fraudulently or improperly made. This view has been taken in a catena of judgments including Chalakkudy Municipality and Another v. Minor Malavika and Another reported in (2009 (4) KHC 713) , Mathew Alex v. Kanjirappally Grama Panchayath (2018 (3) KLT 126), Saji v. State of Kerala (2006 (1) KLT SN 54),

¶67

The Registrar of Births and Deaths v. Thomas Jacob (2011 (3) KLT 461) and Varghese v. Director of Panchayat (2008 (2) KLT 278) .

¶68

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the reasons stated in Ext.P4, for not further proceedings with Ext.P2 application for correction in the register of

¶69

Birth and death for the reason that the school

¶70

records has not been produced is against the

¶71

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 9

¶72

provisions of the Act and the Rules and is

¶73

unsustainable. What is provided in the Act and the

¶74

Rules is only satisfaction of the Registrar

¶75

regarding the entry in the register on birth and death is erroneous in form or substance and if it is found so, the Registrar is duty bound as per the Act and the Rules make the necessary corrections in the register of birth and death. Even going by a perusal of Clause 9.7 in the said circular, I could not find that any such insistence has been made for producing the school records or the school admission register for the purpose of processing Ext.P2 application in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Therefore,

¶76

the objection raised in Ext.P4 is totally unsustainable and accordingly, set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to process Ext.P2 application in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, without insisting for production of school records and necessary changes shall be made as requested in Ext.P2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶77

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 10

¶78

With the above said direction, the writ petition

¶79

is allowed.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶82

¶83

W.P.(C).No.3651 of 2023 11

¶84

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3651/2023

¶85

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶86

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2022

¶87

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DATED 18.01.2023 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.01.2023 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.01.2023 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ONE AND THE SAME CERTIFICATE DATED 17.01.2023. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER'S SON.

¶88

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶89

Exhibit R1(a)

Saji Chacko v. Registrar of Births and Deaths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji Chacko v. Registrar of Births and Deaths

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

Biju. O.V Vs Nalleppilly Grama Panchayat

Vipin C.P Vs Nalleppilly Grama Panchayat

Aloscious Decrus @ Aloshy Vs State of Kerala

Aryan.P. Vs State of Kerala

Suprakasan Kolath, Vs State of Kerala

Vadekkevila Sasi Vs Cochin University of Science & Technology