Thomas Jacob v. Registrar of Births and Deaths, Pulinkunnu Grama Panchayath, The State of Kerala, The Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. N. Ravindran
- Judgment Date
- 2011-01-21
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is partly allowed. Ext.P11 is quashed. The Registrar of Births and Deaths shall, upon the parents jointly declaring, by a notarially attested affidavit, that the correct date of birth is 1.9.1981, proceed to conduct an enquiry and make the necessary entries in the Register of Births and Deaths, and issue a certified extract reflecting the corrected date. The exercise must be completed within one month from the date of the declaration.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition partly allowed; Ext.P11 quashed; directions issued to correct the birth date upon declaration by the parents and enquiry by the Registrar, with a one-month time frame for completion.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Thomas Jacob
Respondents
- Registrar of Births and Deaths / Secretary, Pulinkunnu Grama Panchayath
- The State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to the Local Administration Department, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Thiruvananthapuram
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri S. Sanal Kumar
- • Smt. Bhavana Velayudhan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri R. Azad Babu
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition under WP(C) No. 22222 of 2010 is filed by Thomas Jacob, the father of Joshwa Thomas Jacob, challenging the Registrar of Births and Deaths’ Ext.P11 order that declined to correct the date of birth in the Births and Deaths Register from 8 September 1981 to 1 September 1981. Joshwa was born on 1.9.1981 at Matha Hospital, Pulinkunnu, was baptised on 21.9.1981, and is shown as 1.9.1981 in school records (Ext.P2) and in the passport (Ext.P3). The birth entry in the Register of Births and Deaths records the date as 8.9.1981 under the name Joseph Thomas Jacob, prompting the applicant to seek correction so that Joshwa’s identity matches other documents and facilitates a U.S. Green Card application. The petitioner had previously obtained Ext.P7 (22-1-2010) allowing a correction of the name but not the date of birth. This Court, relying on Ext.P1 (Baptism Certificate), Ext.P2, Ext.P3 and other materials, held that entries may be corrected to reflect the true date of birth, following the principle enunciated in Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika, and that the Registrar is empowered to correct erroneous entries. The Court quashes Ext.P11 and directs the Registrar to conduct an enquiry and to make necessary entries upon a joint declaration by the parents declaring the correct date of birth as 1.9.1981, issuing a certified extract accordingly, within one month of the declaration.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- The law does not contemplate a person to have a wrong name or a mistaken identity in the Register of Births and Deaths or to have wrong particulars regarding the date, place, etc. in the register of births or deaths.
- The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not create or extinguish any right; the Act is intended to regulate the process and procedure of registration and correction of entries, and corrections are permissible where appropriate.
- Where two credible persons declare the date of birth, the Registrar may act on such declarations (Rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1970); the original entry cannot be deleted, but margins can be used to reflect corrections.
- A series of decisions, including Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika, recognize the registrar’s power to correct erroneous entries to reflect true particulars.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicant contends that documentary evidence across Ext.P1 (Baptism Certificate), Ext.P2 (SSLC), Ext.P3 (Passport) consistently shows the date of birth as 1.9.1981. Since the hospital entry was the source of the original register, and the hospital is now defunct, the birth date should be corrected under Sections 15 and the Rules. The Division Bench’s Chalakudy Municipality ruling supports correcting erroneous entries, and the Court should replace the 8.9.1981 entry with 1.9.1981 and issue a certified extract after proper enquiry and declaration by the parents.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondent contends that the primary source (hospital information) governs the original register, and without a fresh hospital letter the date cannot be corrected. School records and the passport cannot by themselves compel correction of the birth register. The Act does not create a right to change entries; corrections must follow prescribed procedure. The only remedy available is to seek a declaration or letter from hospital authorities in future; Ext.P11 is not improper given hospital records, though the Court ultimately grants relief upon declaration by the parents.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chalakudy Municipality v. Malavika | 2009 (4) KLT 714 | Positive | Cited to support that the Registrar of Births and Deaths has power to correct wrong entries in the Register of Births and Deaths; foundational principle relied upon by the court. |
| W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2010 | W.P.(C). No.3154 of 2010 | Mentioned Only | Referenced as part of the Court’s discussion and prior directions, but not relied upon for a direct holding in the current order. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Thomas Jacob v. Registrar of Births and Deaths, Pulinkunnu Grama Panchayath, The State of Kerala, The Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.