The Karnataka High Court has said when identity and paternity of a person is not in dispute, they cannot be denied insertion of their name in the birth certificate, merely on the ground of delay under the rules.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj said a person cannot be made to suffer due to a mistake by parents or by the corporation for not making the rules known by specifically mentioning it on birth certificates.
The court also declared that the period of 15 years prescribed under the rules also does not make any sense for the reason that in those 15 years, the child would continue to be a minor.
“It is only after the child becomes a major, any action could be taken by the child to incorporate his or her name in the birth certificate. This aspect would also have to be taken into consideration in these kind of matters,” the bench said.
The court held an endorsement issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths and Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, declining a request by a girl to include her name in the birth certificate as bad in law.
The petitioner girl’s name was not included in the birth certificate. She approached the authorities for the purpose in view of job requirement for it abroad. She was pursuing her Master’s in Management Programme at IE University, Madrid, Spain. She was born on April 28, 2000, at Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bengaluru, and in the birth certificate, only the names of her father and mother were incorporated.
She also placed on record her passport, certificates issued by the CBSE with her parents’ name, and the Aadhaar card with her father’s name.
According to Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1999, where a birth of any child has been registered without a name, the parent or guardian of such child shall within 12 months from the date of registration of birth of the child give information regarding the name of the child to the Registrar either orally or in writing. In terms of proviso of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, the information given after the period 12 months but within a period of 15 years could be taken into consideration for purposes of such entry. It is further stated that this period was further extended by a period of five years after the expiry of 15 years.
The authorities also cited the instruction issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs by which the 15-year period had been provided for entering the name of the person born in the birth certificate, if not already entered into and the said period having expired in the year 2015 was extended for a period of five years thereafter, which also expired in the year 2020. So, there is no provision to incorporate the name of the person born in the birth certificate since the period has expired, they said.
The court, however, held: “The period of 15 years prescribed under the rules also does not make any sense for the reason that in those 15 years, the child would continue to be a minor. It is only after the child becomes a major, any action could be taken by the child to incorporate his or her name in the birth certificate. This aspect would also have to be taken into consideration in these kind of matters. The respondent not having taken the same into consideration, the endorsement issued is bad in law on this ground also.”
The court also said if at all it is the parents of the petitioner who have defaulted in not incorporating her name in the birth certificate, “a mistake by the parents cannot put the child at a disadvantage since it is the child who is a petitioner now is in requirement of a birth certificate with her name on it for use in her employment”.
The court pointed out the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs has also categorically indicated that it is the responsibility of the corporation to make known the requirement of Rule 10 to everyone and give wide publicity thereof.
“One basic way of making known the same would have been to incorporate the said requirement in the birth certificate issued without a name which has not been done. There are no details which have been made available as regards in what manner the corporation has made known the said requirement to the general public, be that as it may the petitioner was residing outside the State of Karnataka in Cochin, State of Kerala as such any information made known in Karnataka cannot be presumed to be to the knowledge of the petitioner,” the bench said.
Issuing mandamus for issuing of birth certificate with the name of the petitioner, the court directed the authorities to incorporate the requirements of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, in all birth certificates issued henceforth.
Comments
0 comment