AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to restore name of the petitioner’s son as Saathvik Verma, on his birth certificate.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner’s son was issued birth certificate dated 21.08.2024, Annexure P-1, by mentioning his name as Saathvik Verma, which was later changed to Saatvik Verma alias Saatvik Singh by issuing updated birth certificate dated 03.06.2026, Annexure P-2. The said certificate was again updated on 10.06.2026, Annexure P-3, by mentioning his name as Saatvik Singh. The aforesaid change of name of the minor child was carried out in violation of Rule 11 of the Haryana Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2002, which permits correction of a clerical error only, and without consent of the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3, on instructions, submits that the updated birth certificate was issued by changing the name of petitioner’s son solely on the basis of an application submitted for the purpose by the petitioner’s wife/respondent no.4, who is the biological mother of the child. Therefore, respondent no.3- Registrar was within its jurisdiction to carry out the necessary corrections/change in the birth certificate. There is no violation of the applicable rules. The petitioner appears to have certain grievances against his wife which he wants to settle by way of instant petition.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the changes carried out in the birth certificate. The change in surname/name of the child was made on the basis of an application submitted by respondent no.4, who is admittedly his biological mother. There is no change in the parentage of the child, as names of both, the petitioner and respondent no.4 continue to be reflected in the birth certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any provision in the 2002 Rules, which mandates consent of both the parents for carrying out such a correction/change in the name of a minor child. Further, Rule 11 of 2002 Rules, relied upon by the learned counsel, reads as under:-
Rule 11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. [Section 15], -
(1)If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or cancelling the entry) 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 District Registrar.
(2)to (6) xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
Apparently, it authorises the Registrar to correct any clerical or formal error in the register of births and deaths. Although the correction carried out in the instant case regarding the child’s surname from Verma to Singh cannot be termed clerical, it certainly falls in the category of formal error/mistake, especially when all other entries in the register, including those of parents’ names, remain unchanged.
Consequently, no ground to entertain the petition is made out and it stands dismissed.