Case Note & Summary
Background: The case involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of the Registrar of Births and Deaths to correct entries in a birth certificate. The petitioner, Pareshbhai Jentibhai Makavana, sought to amend his step-daughter’s birth certificate to reflect his name as father and his wife’s full name as mother, following his marriage to the child’s mother and a formal adoption. Facts: The child was born on 30.09.2015 to Nehalben during her marriage with Pareshkumar Vallabhbhai Tilva. The biological parents divorced by mutual consent on 02.03.2022, and custody of the minor daughter, Anushree, was taken by the mother. The mother later married the petitioner, Pareshbhai Jentibhai Makavana, and both executed a registered Adoption Deed before the Sub-Registrar at Manavadar, adopting the child. The petitioner then applied to respondent No.2, the competent authority under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969, to correct the birth certificate by replacing the biological father’s name with his own as ‘Pareshbhai Jentibhai Makavana’ and to expand the mother’s name from ‘Nehalben’ to ‘Nehalben Makavana’. Respondent No.2, by order dated 15/21.12.2023, rejected the application on the sole ground that a court order was required for such corrections, asserting there was no provision enabling administrative correction. Legal Issues: The primary issue was whether the Registrar had the statutory power under Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Gujarat Rules to correct the entry, given the changed circumstances, and whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel such correction. Arguments: The petitioner’s counsel contended that the authority had failed to exercise its statutory duty, relying on the decision in Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2008 (1) GLH 556) wherein the High Court had held that Section 15 and Rule 11 confer wide powers to correct erroneous entries and mandamus lies to enforce such duty. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the State, did not oppose the petition and submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in light of the Nitaben precedent. Court’s Analysis: The court examined Section 15 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969, which provides that if the Registrar is satisfied that any entry is erroneous in form or substance, or fraudulently or improperly made, he may correct it by making a marginal entry. Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, details the procedure, including the requirement of a declaration by two credible persons for errors in substance. The court observed that the combined reading of these provisions unmistakably vests the Registrar with the authority to correct entries, including changes in parentage when supported by valid documents like an adoption deed and divorce decree. Referring extensively to Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel (supra), the court reiterated that the expression ‘erroneous in form or substance’ is of wide amplitude and covers not only clerical mistakes but also substantive errors. The authority’s refusal on the ground that only a court order could permit correction was contrary to the statutory scheme and the binding precedent. Decision: Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 15/21.12.2023 was quashed, and respondent No.2 was directed to consider the petitioner’s application for correction of the birth certificate and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after due verification of the relevant documents.
Headnote
A) Births and Deaths Registration – Correction of Birth Certificate – Power of Registrar under Section 15 – Births and Deaths Registrations Act, 1969, Section 15; Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, Rule 11 – The petitioner sought to change father’s and mother’s names in his adopted daughter’s birth certificate following his marriage to the child’s mother after her divorce from the biological father. The Registrar refused on the ground that a court order was required. The Court held that Section 15 and Rule 11 empower the Registrar to correct any erroneous entry in form or substance, which includes changes in parentage based on valid adoption and divorce documents. The authority must exercise its statutory power when satisfied of the error; refusal amounts to dereliction of duty. A writ of mandamus was issued directing the authority to consider the application and make necessary corrections. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent authority can be directed under Article 226 to correct the birth certificate of the petitioner's minor daughter by substituting the name of the petitioner as father in place of the biological father and to correct the mother's name, based on a registered adoption deed and divorce of the mother from the biological father, when the authority has refused on the ground that a court order is necessary
Final Decision
The petition was allowed; the impugned order dated 15/21.12.2023 was quashed; respondent No.2 was directed to consider the application for correction and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after due verification of the relevant documents.
Law Points
- Section 15 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act
- 1969 read with Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules
- 2004 empowers the Registrar to correct any erroneous entry in the register of births and deaths
- writ of mandamus lies to compel the authority to exercise statutory power
