AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P.Nongbri, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. K.P.Bhattacharjee, learned State counsel on behalf of the State
respondents.
Petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the petitioner is the father of Shri Kitboklang Iawphniew. The petitioner''s son was born
on 01.01.1999 and as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 it is mandatory for every Indian citizen to
get their date of births registered with their respective State Governments. The petitioner''s wife had approached the Respondent No.
1 for registering her son''s date of birth. The respondent No. 1 issued a Birth Certificate dated 17.12.2003 which recorded the
petitioner''s son''s date of birth as 01.07.1999 instead of 01.01.1999. The petitioner''s wife then discovered that the date of birth of
the petitioner''s son was mistakenly recorded before the respondent No. 1 as the same would be recorded in all the official
documents for all times to come, it was necessary to correct the same. The petitioner thereafter swore an affidavit on 15.06.2012
before the First Class Magistrate, Sub-ordinate District Council Courts, Shillong declaring the date of birth of the petitioner''s son as
01.01.1999 and not 01.07.1999. The petitioner''s wife then approached the respondent No. 1 for effecting the correction from
01.07.1999 to 01.01.1999. The respondent No. 1 then issued a Fresh Birth Certificate on 03.07.2012 which corrected the earlier
certificate and recorded the date of birth as 01.01.1999.
The petitioner''s wife being ignorant, illiterate and having little or no knowledge about the legal consequences of her actions, again
desired to change her son''s date of birth from 01.01.1999 to 02.03.1998. Subsequently, the petitioner again swore an affidavit on
23.06.2015 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nongstoin declaring that due to bonafide mistake on his part, the date of
birth of the petitioner''s son has been mistakenly entered as 01.01.1999 whereas the correct date of birth is 02.03.1998. The
petitioner''s wife thereafter approached Respondent No. 1 to change the date of birth of the petitioner''s son from 01.01.1999 to
23.06.1998. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 issued a Fresh Birth Certificate on 23.06.2015 recording the date of birth of the
petitioner''s son as 02.03.1998. The respondent No. 1 had issued a fresh Birth Certificate dated 23.06.2015 which recorded the
petitioner''s son''s date of birth as 02.03.1998 instead of 01.01.1999. The original copy of the previous Birth Certificate dated
03.07.2012 has been retained by the respondent No. 1.
On receipt of the fresh Birth Certificate the petitioner''s wife approached the respondent No. 4 so as to rectify the date of birth of the
petitioner''s son in the documents which were issued by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner''s wife had also requested the
concerned authority to record the son''s date of birth as 02.03.1998 in the SSLC Admission Card as well as the Provisional
Certificate. The respondent No. 4 vide order dated 03.08.2015 refused to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner''s son. The
respondent No. 4 had only corrected the son''s surname which was wrongly recorded as ""Biolamary Iawphniaw"" instead of
Biolamery Iawphniaw"" in all the records of the office as provided in the Notification No. 604 dated 25.06.2015. However, the date
of birth of the petitioner''s son could not be corrected from 01.01.1999 to 02.03.1998 due to the fact that the particulars of a
candidate once entered in the Board''s record cannot be changed in view of the Board''s Notifications No. 475 and 556.
The petitioner''s wife submitted a representation dated 15.10.2015 before respondent No.2 requesting respondent No. 2 to return
the Original Birth Certificate dated 03.07.2012 and to cancel the fresh Birth Certificate dated 23.06.2015. The petitioner''s wife
received a letter dated 09.11.2015 from respondent No. 2 whereby her request was rejected. The Respondent No. 2 further
clarified in the aforesaid letter that the request of the petitioner''s wife cannot be entertained as the entries made in the births and death
registers are admissible as evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This has been done in view of the
Government of India letter dated 30.06.2015. As such, the correction in date of birth is not to be allowed unless it is proved to the
satisfaction of the Registrar that a fraudulent entry regarding date of birth was made at the time of reporting/registering the event.
Till date the petitioner''s son has never submitted the Birth Certificate dated 23.06.2015 before any competent authority nor has the
petitioner''s son made any attempt in correcting or rectifying his date of birth as 02.03.1998 in any documents. As such, the date of
birth of the petitioner''s son as on today stood as 01.01.1999 as recorded in the Birth Certificate dated 03.07.2012 for all intents and
purposes. The date of birth of the petitioner''s son was also recorded as 01.01.1999 in the AADHAR Card issued by the Unique
Identification Authority of India. There is no the intention of the petitioner''s wife to mislead the competent authorities but due to
bonafide mistake and ignorance and not being aware of the legal complications, the date of birth of the petitioner''s son has been
recorded in two different dates i.e. (01.01.1999 and 02.03.1998). As such the petitioner''s wife had submitted the representation
before the respondent No. 3 to cancel the Fresh Birth Certificate which recorded the date of birth as 02.03.1998 and to retain
petitioner''s son date of birth as 01.01.1999.
The actions of the respondent No. 3 in refusing to restore the petitioner''s son''s date of birth as 01.01.1999 and cancelling the Birth
Certificate dated 23.06.2015 which recorded the petitioner''s son''s date of birth as dated 02.03.1998 is unwarranted. The recording
of 2(two) date of birth by two competent authorities will greatly hamper the future employment and opportunities of the petitioner''s
son and also create confusion in the future career and will further hamper the future employment and opportunities of the petitioner''s
son. As such, it is fit case for interference by this Hon''ble Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence this writ petition.
Mr. P.Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that the petitioner''s son, namely, Shri. Kitboklang Iawphniaw''s date
of birth was entered twice as two different dates due to the bonafide mistake of the mother and it was not known to the father. A controversy
arose that one Birth Certificate appears as 02.03.1998 and another as 01.01.1999, as issued by the Medical Superintendent cum Registrar, Birth
and Death, Civil Hospital, Nongstoin, Government of Meghalaya, Department of Health and Family Welfare. He further submits that the
petitioner''s son''s date of birth as entered in his matriculation certificate is 01.01.1999, and this may cause confusion in future, so necessary
directed may be given.
Mr. K.P.Bhattacharjee, learned State counsel submits that there are two Birth Certificates, so one Birth Certificate will have to be scrapped.
Both the learned counsels submit that the actual and correct date of birth of the petitioner''s son is 01.01.1999 as was entered in his matriculation
certificate.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that the date of birth which
appeared as 01.01.1999 and was entered in the matriculation certification of the petitioner''s son stands valid and should be considered for all
purpose, and the second date of birth which appeared as 02.03.1998 should be scrapped.
For the reasons discussed above, the Medical Superintendent cum Registrar of Births & Deaths, Civil Hospital, Nongstoin is directed to scrap
the Birth Certificate where the date of birth of the petitioner''s son appears as 02.03.1998.
With this observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.