High Court of Karnataka Allows Inclusion of Name in Birth Certificate Despite Delay — Registrar Directed to Include Name Under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. No Time Limit Prescribed for Inclusion of Name in Birth Certificate; Rejection on Ground of Delay Unjustified.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 103
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Ms. Alka Nagaraj Simha, born on 06.07.1983 in Mysore to Sri K.N. Nagaraja and Smt. K. Mamatha, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the endorsement dated 29.10.2020 issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Mysore Mahanagara Palike, rejecting her application for inclusion of her name in her birth certificate. The birth was registered with the respondent and a certificate under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 was issued to her parents, but the certificate only mentioned the birth of a female child without her name, as per custom the child was named a few months after birth. The petitioner, now residing in the United States and applying for a Green Card, required a birth certificate reflecting her name. The respondent rejected the application on the ground of delay. The court considered the provisions of the Act and the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, particularly Rule 11 which allows inclusion of name within 12 months or later with prescribed fee. The court held that there is no time limit for inclusion of name in the birth certificate and the Registrar cannot refuse on the ground of delay. The impugned endorsement was quashed, and the respondent was directed to include the name 'Alka Nagaraj Simha' in the birth certificate within four weeks upon payment of prescribed fee.

Headnote

A) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Correction of Birth Certificate - Inclusion of Name - Section 15 - The petitioner's birth was registered without her name as per custom of naming after few months. The Registrar rejected the application for inclusion of name citing delay. The High Court held that there is no time limit prescribed under the Act or Rules for inclusion of name in the birth certificate. The Registrar is duty-bound to include the name upon application and payment of prescribed fee. The impugned endorsement was quashed and the respondent was directed to include the name 'Alka Nagaraj Simha' in the birth certificate within four weeks. (Paras 1-5)

B) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Birth Certificate - Evidentiary Value - Section 17 - The birth certificate issued under Section 17 is a public document and serves as proof of birth. The omission of the child's name does not invalidate the certificate. The name can be included subsequently as per Rule 11 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Registrar of Births and Deaths can refuse to include the name of a child in the birth certificate on the ground that the application was made after a long delay, when the birth was registered without the name.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 29.10.2020 is quashed. The respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner as 'Alka Nagaraj Simha' in the birth certificate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on payment of prescribed fee.

Law Points

  • Birth certificate can be corrected to include name of child even if name was not given at time of registration
  • Section 15 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act
  • 1969 allows correction of entry
  • Rule 11 of Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules
  • 1999 permits inclusion of name within 12 months or later with prescribed fee
  • No time limit for inclusion of name in birth certificate
  • Registrar cannot reject application solely on ground of delay
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (12) 33

Writ Petition No.13692 of 2020 (LB-RES)

2020-12-21

R. Devdas

Sri Chandan K (for petitioner), Smt M P Geetha Devi (for respondent)

Ms. Alka Nagaraj Simha

The Registrar of Births and Deaths, Mysore Mahanagara Palike

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of application for inclusion of name in birth certificate.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of impugned endorsement dated 29.10.2020 and direction to include petitioner's name in birth certificate.

Filing Reason

The respondent rejected the petitioner's application for inclusion of her name in the birth certificate on the ground of delay.

Issues

Whether the Registrar can reject an application for inclusion of name in birth certificate on the ground of delay. Whether there is any time limit prescribed under the Act or Rules for inclusion of name in birth certificate.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that as per custom, the child was named a few months after birth and the name was reflected in academic records, passport, and PAN card. The birth certificate only showed birth of a female child without name. The application for inclusion was rejected on delay, but there is no time limit under the Act or Rules. Respondent argued that the application was made after a long delay and therefore rejected.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no time limit prescribed under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 or the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 for inclusion of the name of a child in the birth certificate. The Registrar cannot reject an application for inclusion of name solely on the ground of delay. The Registrar is duty-bound to include the name upon application and payment of prescribed fee.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 29.10.2020 given by the respondent, Registrar of Births and Deaths, rejecting the application of the petitioner for showing the name of the petitioner in the birth certificate. There is no time limit prescribed under the Act or the Rules for inclusion of the name of the child in the birth certificate. The Registrar cannot reject the application on the ground of delay.

Procedural History

The petitioner applied to the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Mysore Mahanagara Palike for inclusion of her name in the birth certificate. The respondent issued an endorsement dated 29.10.2020 rejecting the application. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.13692 of 2020 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition was heard and disposed of on 21.12.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969: Section 15, Section 17
  • Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999: Rule 11
  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Inclusion of Name in Birth Certificate Despite Delay — Registrar Directed to Include Name Under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. No Time Limit Prescribed for Inclusion of Name in Birth Certificate; Rejecti...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Commercial Dispute — Upholds Award Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Court holds that challenge to award on merits is not permissible and that the arbitrat...