Saumya George vs The Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths/Panchayat Director

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—Alleging that the 2nd respondent, who is competent to make corrections in the birth certificate of the petitioner after conducting necessary enquiry, is reluctant to do so in the petitioner''s case, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

The petitioner was born in the wedlock between Sri. K.V. George and Smt. Alice George at their residence at Thottumukkam at 12.30 am on 15.05.1983; it is alleged. However, while registering her name in the birth register of the 2nd respondent, the date of birth was wrongly entered as 16.05.1983. This, according to the petitioner, was because of the mistake committed by the 2nd respondent, who reckoned 12.30 am on 15.05.1983 as 12.30 am on 16.05.1983. The petitioner alleges that since the birth certificate was not necessary at that time, she did not obtain the same; and therefore, the mistake was not brought to the notice of her parents. She now alleges that presently, she is working abroad and for her employment purpose, she had to produce the birth certificate; and accordingly, she received Ext. P3 certificate, which revealed that her date of birth was mistakenly entered as 16.05.1983. She points out that because of the discrepancy regarding date of birth in Ext. P3 and other documents including the SSLC book, passport etc, she may lose her employment abroad and may be compelled to come back. She also points out that she would be criminally liable for declaring a wrong date of birth. Her grievance is that though she approached the 2nd respondent with Ext. P4 representation for getting her date of birth corrected, the same did not evoke any positive response. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is contended that the petitioner had submitted an application through her parents for correcting her name from Lisy to Soumya George in the birth register and neither the petitioner nor her parents had raised any objection regarding the date of birth at that point of time. They maintained the stand that the date of birth was entered in Ext. P3 as per the information furnished by the petitioner''s father, who had signed in column 23 of the birth register kept in the respondent panchayat. They would further point out that all other documents including the SSLC book, passport etc., where the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 15.05.1983, are subsequent documents and the date of birth made mention of in those documents is not on the basis of the birth certificate issued from the respondent panchayat. They would further point out in the affidavit submitted by the mother of the petitioner, she had stated that the date of the birth of the petitioner is 16.05.1983.

A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent panchayat, in which similar contentions were taken. In support of their contentions, the respondent panchayat has produced Exts. R2(a) and R2 (b).

Arguments have been heard.

Rule 11(1) of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 provides that 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 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 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1969. In the instant case, though the petitioner has a case that her date of birth was inadvertently recorded as 16.05.1983, the Registrar of the respondent panchayat was not satisfied that any error has crept in the registration of the date of birth of the petitioner. The stand taken by the contesting respondents is that the date of birth is recorded on the basis of the information supplied by the father of the petitioner at the time of birth.

The learned counsel of the petitioner, per contra, invited my attention to the decision of this Court in The Chalakkudy Municipality and Another Vs. Malavika and Another, , wherein this Court observed that Rule 11 would also indicate that once the Registrar is moved for correction of any entry in the register of birth or death, it is mandatory on his part to enquire into the matter and once he is satisfied that the entry is erroneous, the rule mandates that the correction should be made as required under Section 15 of the Act. This duty, cast upon the 2nd respondent, was not discharged by the 2nd respondent; so submitted, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

On a specific query put forward by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument as to whether the petitioner''s birth is recorded in any hospital, the learned counsel would submit that the birth of the petitioner occurred at the residence of her parents; and however, the birth was witnessed by two close relatives of the petitioner. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that these two close relatives are still alive and they are ready to give affidavits in support of the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel would further point out that the petitioner''s father, who gave the information at the time of her birth, is no more.

In the light of the materials now placed on board, this Court is of the definite view that a re-look by the 2nd respondent is warranted in this case, especially, in the light of the submission made by the petitioner that two close relatives of the petitioner, who witnessed her birth, are alive and they are ready to give affidavits in support of the claim of the petitioner.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to produce affidavits by the relatives, who witnessed her birth, before the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Those witnesses shall also be personally present before the 2nd respondent at the time of hearing, if insisted by the 2nd respondent. After verifying the affidavits and being satisfied that the claim put forward by the petitioner is true, the 2nd respondent shall make necessary changes in the birth register and issue a fresh birth certificate showing the correct date of birth of the petitioner.