Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gauravkumar Amrutlal Gondaliya, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969, challenging the decision dated 31.07.2025 of the Surat Municipal Corporation (respondent No.2) rejecting his application for correction of his son's name in the birth certificate. The petitioner's son was born on 14.03.2022 in Surat, and the birth certificate initially recorded the name as 'Devin'. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a Gazette notification changing the name to 'Ram'. On 11.07.2025, he applied to the respondent authority for correction of the name in the birth certificate, but the application was rejected. The petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary and without any valid reason, especially since the name change had been duly published in the Government Gazette. The respondent authority did not provide any substantial justification for the rejection. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the Gazette notification is a valid and sufficient document to effect a name change, and the authority ought to have considered it and allowed the correction. The court held that the rejection was unsustainable and quashed the impugned decision. It directed the respondent No.2 to issue a fresh birth certificate with the corrected name 'Ram' within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Birth Registration - Correction of Name - Section 15, Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 - Petitioner sought correction of his son's name from 'Devin' to 'Ram' in the birth certificate, having already published the change in the Government Gazette - The respondent authority rejected the application without valid reasons - Held that the authority ought to have considered the Gazette notification as sufficient proof and allowed the correction - Petition allowed, impugned decision quashed, direction to issue corrected certificate (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent authority was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for correction of name in the birth certificate of his son, despite the petitioner having obtained a Gazette notification effecting the name change.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned decision dated 31.07.2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to issue a fresh birth certificate to the petitioner after making necessary correction in the 'Name' column as per the application dated 11.07.2025, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Correction of name in birth certificate
- Power of Registrar under Section 15 of Births and Deaths Registration Act
- 1969
- Gazette notification as valid proof of name change
- Writ of mandamus for correction of birth record
