High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-02-01Writ petition allowed; correction of the birth ...

Biju Varghese v. State of Kerala and Registrar of Births, Ala Grama Panchayat (WPC No.34705/2011)

Case / Petition Number:WPC.No.34705/2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Judgment Date: 2012-02-01
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. Ext.P4 quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to allow correction of the petitioner’s name in the birth register and to issue a corrected certificate at the earliest, and in any event within 10 days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; correction of the birth entry ordered; certificate to be issued within 10 days.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Biju Varghese

Respondents

State of Kerala and another represented by the Secretary, Department of Local Self Government Institution Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Registrar of Births, Ala Grama Panchayat, Pennukara Po, Chengannur Taluk

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. Ashok Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• V.K. Rafeeq (Government Pleader)
• P.K. Vijaya Mohanan
• V.K. Biju

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P4, which declined correction of the petitioner’s birth entry. The petitioner, Biju Varghese, asserts that his true name is Biju Varghese, as evidenced by Ext.P1 (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) and Ext.P2 (Passport) showing the name as Biju Varghese with date of birth 31.10.1976. The birth was registered on 4.11.1976 at CSI Hospital, Kodukulanji, with the entry recording the name as Cherian Oommen; the father’s name is Varghese and the mother Kunjoonjamma. The 2nd respondent contends there is no error in the register and relies on circular Ext.R2(a) issued by the Government, restricting correction under Section 15 to clerical errors or entries that are fraudulent or improperly made. The court considers Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which enables correction if the entry is erroneous or fraudulently/ improperly made, with the Registrar empowered to correct without altering the original entry, and Rule 12 of the 1970 Rules requiring inquiry into identity. The court finds the petitioner’s documentary evidence consistent with his identity and that the name is indeed erroneously entered. It rejects the circular as controlling over statutory remedy. The writ is allowed; Ext.P4 is quashed; the Registrar is to correct the name in the birth register and issue a corrected certificate within 10 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970Rule 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that the birth entry wrongly records his name as Cherian Oommen whereas his actual name is Biju Varghese, as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2 showing the name Biju Varghese with date of birth 31.10.1976. He argues that the discrepancy constitutes an erroneous entry under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, read with Rule 12 of the 1970 Rules, and that proper inquiry by the Registrar is required to verify identity and the true name. The circular Ext.R2(a) cannot override statutory remedies for correction when identity is established. Since the hospital birth record, school certificate, and passport all reflect the name Biju Varghese, correction is justified and should be effected, with issuance of a corrected birth certificate. The petition prays for quashing Ext.P4 and directing correction in the Register of Births." ,

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents submit that the birth entry as recorded is correct and the correction sought is not within the scope of Section 15, which the Circular Ext.R2(a) narrows to clerical errors or entries made fraudulently or improperly. They contend there is no material showing mis-entry or identity flaw; reliance is placed on the circular that restricts corrections under the Act and on the need for proper verification, arguing that the information from Ext.R2(a) should be given weight over a bare claim of wrong naming. They maintain the Registrar cannot alter the entry merely because of differences in name across documents without a proper inquiry and justification.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Varghese vs. Director of Panchayat	2008(2) KLT 278	Positive	The court relies on this Kerala High Court decision to support that the Registrar may correct a name under section 15 after proper enquiry and that a circular cannot prevent such correction where identity is established.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Biju Varghese v. State of Kerala and Registrar of Births, Ala Grama Panchayat (WPC No.34705/2011) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/12TH MAGHA 1933** ## **WPC.No. 34705 of 2011 (K)** **-------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------- --------** **BIJU VARGHESE** **AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.VARGHESE,THYVILAYIL HOUSE THUMPAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (NOW RESIDING AT 39/19,CHAKRAVARTHY STREET TAMBARAM EAST,CHENNAI 600 059.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.** **2. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS** **ALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,PENNUKARA PO,CHENGANNUR TALUK PIN 689 520.** **R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K.RAFEEK R2 BY SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN R2 BY SRI.V.K.BIJU** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.34705/2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **P1:- COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, TAMIL NADU OF THE YEAR APRIL 1992 TO THE PETITIONER.** **P2:- COPY OF THE IST AND 2ND PAGES OF PASSPORT ISSUED ON 12.6.07 TO THE PETITIONER.** **P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. NIL ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** **P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT.D 15.12.2011 FROM THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **R2(a):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.1(2)(C) 75-VS(RA) VOL.III DTD. 21.11.1977 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS) REGARDING CHANGE OF NAME IN BIRTHS/DEATHS REGISTERS.** **TRUE COPY** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **tss** ## C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------WP(C).NO. 34705 of 2011 --------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of February, 2012 ## JUDGMENT Petitioner is approaching this court aggrieved by Ext.P4 through which a request made by him for correction of name in the Register of Birth was declined by the 2[nd] respondent, assigning reason that the original name entered in the register cannot be considered as a pet name ('omanaperu') and that the request cannot be allowed in view of circular No.B1/20741/2009 issued by the Government. 2. Facts of the case is that, the name of the petitioner entered in the Register of Birth is 'Cherian Oommen'. According to the petitioner, his original name is as 'Biju Varghese'. He had produced Ext.P1 Secondary School Leaving Certificate showing the name as 'Biju Varghese' with date of birth noted as 31.10.1976. Ext.P2 is the copy of Passport held by the petitioner in which his name is entered as 'Biju Varghese' with date of birth noted as 31.10.1976. According to the petitioner the name 'Cherian Oommen' happened to be entered in the Register of WP(C). 34705 /2011 2 Birth only on the basis of information supplied from the hospital where he was born. It is further stated that the name of the father of the petitioner is Varghese and his mother's name is Kunjoonjamma. 3. In the counter affidavit of the 2[nd] respondent it is pointed out that, the birth of the petitioner was on 31.10.1976 at CSI Hospital, Kodukulanji and the birth was registered on 4.11.1976. His name is specifically entered in the register as 'Cherian Oommen'. The name of his father is entered as “Varghese, Literacy - Standard X, Occupation - Company service” and the name of the mother as Kunjoonjamma. According to the 2[nd] respondent there is no error occurred in the Register in and hence the correction sought for cannot be considered. It is further contended that the stand taken by the petitioner that his name was wrongly entered as 'Cherian Oommen' is not correct. The 2[nd] respondent relied on a circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, copy of which is produced as Ext.R2(a), which insists that the correction contemplated under section 15 shall be confined to correction of some clerical WP(C). 34705 /2011 3 error or in cases where his name might have been fraudulently and improperly entered in the register. But the correction applied for in the present case is not one coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned in Ext.R2(a), is the contention. 4. While considering the issue I take note of the powers conferred under section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969. The provision says that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may subject to the circumstances in which such entries are made, can correct or cancel such entries or correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry without any alteration of the original entry. 5. In the case at hand it is evident from the details contained in the entry that the date of birth, name of the father, name of the mother and other details are tallying. It is evident from Exts.P1 and P2 that the petitioner was admitted to the WP(C). 34705 /2011 4 school and continued his life with the name as 'Biju Varghese'. According to him, he has no name as 'Cherian Oommen' all along during his life. Notwithstanding the circular issued by the Central Government or State Government, it is necessary to have a proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested under section 15. The Registrar should make appropriate enquiry as to the identity of the person concerned and also should make enquiries about the real name of the person. If it is convinced through any satisfactory proof that the name of the person is wrongly entered in the register, the Registrar is bound to effect the correction sought for, under section 15. Merely saying that the name of the person entered in the register is not a pet name '(Omanaperu') the correction sought for cannot be declined. 6. A learned Judge of this court in the decision in ## **Varghese vs. Director of Panchayat (2008(2) KLT 278)** has taken the view that the power of the Registrar to make correction in the name of a person by virtue of section 15, after conducting enquiry envisaged by Rule 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1970, cannot be doubted in the light of any WP(C). 34705 /2011 5 circular. If it is convinced that the name entered in the register is erroneous there is no reason to deny correction, is the findings. 7. On the facts of the case at hand I am of the view that there is no reason to suspect identity of the person or any suspicion with respect to the name of the person as reflected in the school register, Passport and other documents. Hence it is clear that the entry contained in the register with respect to the name is erroneous. Therefore I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get his name corrected in the register by invoking powers under section 15 of the Act, read with Rule 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1970. 8. Therefore the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to allow correction sought for by the petitioner, in his application dated 12.12.2011. Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken and corrected certificate shall be issued to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE WP(C). 34705 /2011 6 WP(C). 34705 /2011 7