The bail application concerns Sanjay, accused in Crime No.200/2025 of Oonnukal Police Station, Ernakulam, charged under IPC sections 420 and 34. The petition, filed under Section 482 CrPC (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as per the order), contends for bail on grounds that the petitioner is already in custody in another case with identical facts; the arrest in the present case is not recorded, and the petitioner should be released on bail subject to strict conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed, but conceded the arrest was not recorded in this case. The court acknowledges the long-standing principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh to emphasize personal liberty and the need for justification for arrest. It also refers to Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala to reinforce the liberal bail approach in appropriate circumstances. The judge ultimately allows the bail with a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to standard conditions (appearance before IO, non-absorption of any future offences, not leaving India without permission), while retaining jurisdiction to cancel bail if violated. The order cites ongoing jurisprudence on bail and personal liberty and endorses a measured, conditional release strategy.
MACA No. 688 of 2013 and MACA No. 216 of 2015 This is a common judgment of the High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) by Justice C. Jayachandran, delivering on MACA Nos. 688 of 2013 and 216 of 2015, arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in OP(MV) No.1531/2007 for a scooter–bus collision on 27 April 2007. The Tribunal held negligence by the bus driver and awarded Rs.5,54,548 as total compensation with 8% interest from the petition date; the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to pay on behalf of the owner. The insurer challenged the calculation of disability compensation, arguing that the Tribunal applied a split multiplier (9 for pre-retirement, 5 post-retirement) and that the functional disability (15%) and neurological disability (44%) did not justify the assessed damages, including continuing and permanent disability. The claimant challenged the Tribunal’s approach as well, contending that the impact of severe injuries, including left hemiplegia and visual impairment, warranted recognition of loss of amenities and higher pain-and-suffering and nourishment awards, and criticized the insufficient attention to life-long consequences. The High Court reconsiders these issues in light of Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, and Pranay Sethi, and related judgments (Jayasree N. and Usha Kumari). It holds that a standard multiplier of 14 should apply for injury cases, not a split multiplier, and it revises several heads of compensation accordingly, including enhancement for loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and extra nourishment, while disallowing continuing and permanent disability. The enhanced amount is Rs.7,67,148. The court ultimately allows MACA216/2015 to the extent noted and dismisses MACA688/2013.
MACA No. 1081 of 2013; MACA No. 1441 of 2013 This is a pair of Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arising from a January 31, 2003 accident on the Kottappuram-Edappal road involving a Mini Lorry. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, awarded Rs. 1,89,830 to the claimant in MACA 1081 and Rs. 6,000 to the claimant in MACA 1441, while the appellants contended that the award was inadequate. The appellants argue that the Tribunal erred in fixing a low notional income and undervaluing damages, particularly for a young engineer in MACA 1081 who earned about Rs. 6,000 per month but did not prove formal employment. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2951), the High Court held that for a 2003 accident the notional income should be Rs. 4,000 per month and recalculated the compensation. The Court found the disability in MACA 1081 to be 20% (not 12% as per the Tribunal) and applied a multiplier of 17, determining enhanced compensation for permanent disability, loss of earnings, bystander expenses, extra nourishment, and loss of amenities. The Tribunal’s liability finding remained undisturbed. In MACA 1441, the Court allowed a modest enhancement (Rs. 5,000) based on admitted injuries. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced sums with interest at 8% p.a. within two months; the appeals are allowed with no costs, subject to regulatory deposit directives.
This High Court of Kerala Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from a Kalpetta MACT award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, consequent to a 2010 accident in which the claimant sustained severe injuries as a pillion rider. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,74,180 with 7.5% interest and held the respondents jointly liable, with the insurer on payment responsibility. The appellant contends that the quantum is inadequate: Ext.A9 indicates the claimant’s true income as a shuttering foreman (~Rs.15,000 per month) though the Tribunal used Rs.3,000; the 4% disability certificate does not reflect the C2 vertebra fracture and resulting loss of earning capacity; Ext.A9 was not proved due to lack of examination of the issuing party. The respondents/insurer contend the compensation is just and adequate and that Ext.A9 is unproved. The judgment discusses relevant jurisprudence (Ramachandrappa; Syed Sadiq; Raj Kumar; Sarla Verma; Pranay Sethi) to justify notional income in certain cases and the multiplier method for future earnings, concluding that Rs.1,64,700 additional compensation is warranted. The appeal ultimately allows enhancement, directing payment within two months and requiring bank details, with costs to be borne by the parties.
Shilpa S. Jayadev filed a writ petition challenging the computation of reservations for MBBS admissions under KEAM 2018-19 in Kerala. The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, argued that horizontal reservations such as Nominees, Persons With Disabilities (PWD), and Special Reservations (SR) must interlock with vertical reservations under Article 15(4) and 16(4), and that the total pool of seats must be considered for mandatorily reserving SCST, in line with the Supreme Court's horizontal-vertical reservation framework (Indra Sawhney). She relied on Ext P9 (prospectus KEAM 2018), Ext P5–P6 (government orders), and subsequent judgments (e.g., Indra Sawhney, Anil Kumar Gupta, Saurav Yadav) to contend that 10% SCST must be preserved and applied across the entire seat pool, with appropriate adjustments for PWD/SR within the horizontal scheme. The petition traced earlier petitions (27190/2018 and 16171/2019) and argued that improper calculation disadvantaged SCST seats (shortfall of 5–8 MBBS seats at 989 total seats; 102 SCST seats would be due). The government defended the policy, arguing the process followed statutory time-schedules and horizontal reservations per apex-court principles. On merits, the court found belated petitions and granted no relief. It dismissed the petition with no costs, noting admissions were conducted per the established timetable and extensions were within judicial discretion in exceptional cases. The decision clarifies that belated challenges to reservation policy are unlikely to succeed where the process complied with constitutional and statutory norms.
The appellant, Vinoy P.J., filed MACA 1659 of 2012 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kalpetta’s award in O.P.(M.V.)575/2009 for injuries suffered on 24.09.2009 when he collided with a goods auto-rickshaw KL-12C 6944 while riding a motorcycle KL-12D/6245. The Tribunal held the autorickshaw driver negligent and the owner vicariously liable, with the insurer directed to indemnify the owner; it awarded Rs.80,660 with 7.5% interest. Aggrieved, the claimant contends that the compensation is inadequate across several heads given the seriousness of injuries and the lengthy treatment; he seeks higher awards for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, transport, loss of earnings, and bystander expenses. The insurer concedes policy coverage; the driver and owner’s liability is not contested by them. The Kerala High Court clarifies general principles for awarding compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, reiterating that damages fall into pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads and must be just, adequate, and restore the claimant to pre-accident position. Relying on Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar and Ramachandrappa v Manager, the court analyzes the evidence (11 days of inpatient care, multiple surgeries, 4% permanent disability) and increases several heads. It awards an enhanced total of Rs.35,950 (rounded) with 6.5% interest, directs the insurer to pay within two months, and requires the claimant to provide bank details; costs follow.
Divya S., a 44-year-old non-vocational teacher (Senior) at Government Higher Secondary School, Chalakudy, challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s January 23, 2023 order dismissing OA No.151/2023 in OP(KAT) No.51/2023. The OA sought to strike down the PSC notification Anx.A-3 of December 11, 2019 fixing an upper age limit of 40 years for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in History and other subjects, contending that UGC Regulations 2018 render any upper age cap redundant and that divesting the exclusion of the applicant from Annexure-A6 is arbitrary. The Tribunal held that the fixation of upper age is a matter within the State’s policy domain and that statutory rules prescribe 40 years, with permissible relaxations. The High Court, after hearing both sides, affirmed that the Tribunal’s conclusion is correct: the State has competence under Article 309 read with Entry 41 List II and Entry 25 List III to prescribe upper age limits for entry-level posts in Government Colleges; the UGC has no power to determine State service conditions; while UGC Regulations influence policy, they do not compel States to alter their age norms. The Court also relies on leading principles from the UGC framework and Supreme Court decisions, including Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Gujarat University, to hold that age-related policy is primarily a State prerogative. The petition is dismissed.
This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns a donor and recipient seeking transplant permission against an order of the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) that barred donation on the ground that the donor is involved in multiple criminal offences. The petitioners rely on the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014, contending there is no express prohibition in the Act or Rules against donation by a person with criminal antecedents; the duty of the DLAC is to prevent commercial dealings in organs, not to bar donors for criminal records. The court analyzes Sections 9(5) and 9(6) and Rules 7(3), 23(2), and 23(3), highlighting that the DLAC must assess linkage, lack of middlemen, financial status, and non-addiction, but there is no statutory prohibition on criminal antecedents. The judgment criticizes the Ext.P9 order as unsustainable and emphasizes a pragmatic, time-sensitive approach for patients on death’s door, invoking Rule 23(2) to justify discretionary, humane decisions. It cites Shoukath Ali Pullikuyil (2017) and distinguishes older case law to reiterate that criminal history alone should not bar donation, directing expeditious reconsideration of the applications and requesting chief administrative directions for all DLACs to avoid delays.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 693 of 2009) before the Kerala High Court challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No. 983/2003, Neyyattinkara, arising from the death of Pradeep Kumar, a police constable, following a road accident on 22 May 2003. The deceased, aged 41, was riding a motorcycle with his wife as a pillion rider when an autorickshaw struck from the rear. The appellants—his wife, three children (minors) and the parents—claimed compensation as dependants; the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,23,640 with interest at 7.5% per annum. The 1st respondent owner was ex parte; the 2nd respondent insurer admitted the policy but contended the claim was excessive and alleged the deceased rode rashly, seeking dismissal of the claim. The High Court revisits the quantum, guided by Supreme Court authorities on ‘just compensation’ (Pranay Sethi) and related doctrines (Sarala Varma, Kalpanaraj, Kunjandy). It recalibrates income as notional, reduces the multiplier from 15 to 14, applies 30% future prospects, and decreases personal living expenses deduction from 1/3 to 1/4. Conventional heads are enhanced (funeral, loss of estate, and especially loss of consortium/dependent losses). The net enhanced award is Rs. 12,05,927. The appeal is allowed, with interest on the enhanced amount and proportionate costs, to be deposited within two months.
The petitioner, K. Mohanan, is a stage carriage operator on the Guruvayoor–Thrissur–Palakkad route, operating a vehicle KL-08/AT-6955 with timings fixed by Ext. P1 (dated 23.03.2000) for another vehicle KL/08-F-3553. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging Ext. P11 (14.02.2019) issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (RTA). The challenge also seeks a mandamus to proceed with Ext. P5, a request by the second respondent for revision of timings on the Palakkad–Guruvayoor route (KL-45-A-8161), in strict accordance with law and as directed by this Court in Ext. P8 judgment (03.12.2018) in W.P.(C) No. 38096/2018. The second respondent previously approached this Court for revision of timings, arguing changed circumstances along the route to avoid clash with other services. The judgment references Krishnankutty v. John (1992) 2 KLT 883 and Mohammed Sadique v. Secretary, RTA (AIR 1994 Kerala 1), establishing that a timing revision requires a ground or reason, typically arising from altered circumstances or a new state of affairs since fixation. The Court finds Ext. P11 lacking in process, including absence of a timing conference, and directs consideration of Ext. P5 in accordance with Ext. P8, with hearing, and a six-week deadline to complete. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
The petitioners, occupants of shop rooms in the Devaswom Shopping Complex at Adoor under the Travancore Devaswom Board, challenged notices directing revised rent and security deposits from 30.11.2021 and sought fresh lease agreements. They filed WP(C) No.19029 of 2022 under Article 226, praying for quashing Exts.P1, P3, P4, P6, and for mandamus to fix 2022-23 rent with a 10% increase over the existing rent and to bar any additional deposit beyond what they had already deposited. The respondents argued that the Travancore Devaswom Board, as administrator of Devaswoms under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, is bound to protect and enhance revenue from movable and immovable assets, including leased properties, and that redetermination would be guided by the Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR). The Board relied on decisions such as Travancore Devaswom Board v. Thanath International (2004) and V. Haridasan Pillai (2019) along with other Kerala judgments, to justify market-based rent and enforcement actions. The Court noted damages to the complex sunshade and directed an engineering report. It ultimately held that the Board must fix rents not lower than market rates and directed the Devaswom Commissioner to refix the rent within two months after hearing, with Board approval within another month. The petition was disposed of with no order on costs.
This writ petition challenges non-payment by the Kanhangad Municipality for waste-removal work done at the trenching ground under Ext.R1(a) issued on 25.06.2011. The contractor completed the work by 24.01.2012, but the Municipality paid only Rs.6.61 lakhs of the due Rs.15 lakhs, withholding the balance based on Ext.R1(i) prepared by the Junior Health Inspector alleging incomplete removal of old waste. The petitioner relied on Ext.P4, minutes of the Municipality’s governing council, which record 95% completion. The court notes Ext.R1(i) predates Ext.P4 and does not indicate to whom it was issued. It rejects the Municipality’s technical plea under Sections 22(1)(l) and 22(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, finding that the Health Standing Committee’s 24.09.2012 report and the all-party meeting of 10.12.2012 acknowledging 95% completion suffice, and that Council approval was not a valid prerequisite to disbursement in this context. Consequently, the court allows the writ petition, directing the Municipality to pay Rs.7,50,000 with 8% interest per annum from 24.01.2012 until payment, with statutory tax deductions as required. The decision emphasizes that once work is extracted, the contractor is entitled to due compensation and to interest for delayed payment.”
Shanija and others challenged an award of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, arising from a road accident on 22 August 2004 that killed Vijayan, a 35-year-old employed driver. The mini-lorry driver collided with bus KL-10 D 9779, owned by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent. The tribunal found the bus driver negligent and the insurer liable, awarding Rs 4,19,000 with 7% interest and costs. The appellants argued that the compensation was inadequate and that income, future prospects, and heads such as loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium required recalculation. The insurer denied responsibility for enhanced compensation, maintaining the Tribunal’s assessment. The High Court, citing Ramachandrappa to accept a higher monthly income (Rs 4,500 for an unskilled employee) given the accident year 2004, and applying Pranay Sethi for 40% future prospects, re-assessed the loss of dependency. With five dependents, a 1/4 deduction was applied for personal expenses, and the total dependency computation rose to Rs 9,07,200. Funeral expenses were increased to Rs 15,000, loss of estate to Rs 15,000, and loss of consortium to Rs 2,00,000, with Rs 10,000 already awarded for love and affection set off against consortium as per Satinder Kaur. The court held that the appellants were entitled to Rs 7,20,200 extra, allowed the appeal, and directed deposit by the insurer within three months, with no interest for the delay.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1687 OF 2016 Kelappan, the revision petitioner, challenges his conviction under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for illicit arrack production, stemming from a raid on 01.08.2011 on the banks of the Vilangad river near his residence. The trial court sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh with default imprisonment. The Sessions Court-V Kozhikode and the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kozhikode, upheld conviction but reduced the substantive sentence on appeal. In this criminal revision petition before the Kerala High Court, the petitioner contends two core defects: (i) identity of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) gross violation of Section 53A of the Abkari Act, notably in the disposal of seized liquor and in the manner inventory, certification and sampling were handled. The prosecution’s case relies on PW2, the detecting officer, who testified to seeing a person near two 35‑litre cans; the accused fled, leaving a can, and subsequent disposal of wash and destruction of samples occurred at the scene. The High Court scrutinizes the inventory (Ext.P8), the destruction of wash, lack of independent identification, and the absence of properMagistrate certification under 53A. Relying on Balakrishna Rai and Sathyan, the court emphasizes strict adherence to 53A and the evidentiary consequences of non-compliance, ultimately allowing the revision petition and acquitting the petitioner.
Prabin K.P., sole accused in Crime No.158/2025 of Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram, seeks statutory bail under Section 483 BNSS in B.A. No.4867 of 2025. The case concerns offences under Sections 85 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS), with the FIR initially registered under Section 194 BNSS. The petitioner surrendered on 02.02.2025. The prosecution contends that the investigation is not complete and that the maximum punishment under Section 108 is up to 10 years, with a 90-day window for investigation; the defence argues for statutory bail since the petitioner has been in custody since 02.02.2025 and the investigation has not concluded. The defacto complainant’s counsel opposes bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The court notes that it must decide, in light of authorities such as Mohammed Sajjid v. State of Kerala, whether the relevant timeline is 60 or 90 days, and emphasizes the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. The court ultimately grants bail with standard conditions, directing bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, travel restrictions, and non-commission of further offences, while applying eligibility principles from Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. If violated, bail can be canceled by the jurisdictional court, as stated in the order signed by P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
MAT.APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2023; MAT.APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2020; RPFC NO. 52 OF 2020 This judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court disposes of two matrimonial appeals (Mat.Appal Nos. 140 of 2020 and 194 of 2023) and a Revision Petition for Family Court (RPFC No. 52 of 2020) arising from proceedings in Kannur. The central dispute concerns a marriage solemnized on 22.04.2016 between the wife Deepthi Janardhanan (and her family) and the husband V.K. Rakesh. The husband sought annulment on grounds that the wife had epilepsy before marriage and had used psychotropic medicines; he also alleged suppression of material facts amounting to fraud. The wife challenged the annulment and sought maintenance and return of gold ornaments, while the husband opposed. The Family Court had maintained annulment and granted maintenance; it dismissed the gold-ornament claim. The High Court, on 05.12.2023, examined evidence including medical records, doctor’s testimony, diaries and photographs, and held that the petitioner-wife’s failure to rebut direct evidence did not by itself establish fraud; the evidence suggested suppression rather than concealment of material facts. The court held that the onus to prove fraud rested with the party asserting it, and concluded that the alleged concealment did not warrant annulment of the marriage. Consequently, Mat.Appeal Nos.140/2020 and 194/2023 were dismissed, while RPFC No.52/2020 was allowed, altering the maintenance order. The judgment underscores the stringent burden of proof in fraud-based annulment and affirms the district court’s approach to evidence and adverse-inference principles under the Indian Evidence Act.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4657 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) filed by three petitioners — Jithin Sebastian, Valasamma, and Sebastian — in Crime No.656/2025 of Angamali Police Station. The offences alleged are under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Snahita (BNS), 2023, and are described as matrimonial in nature, with claims of mental and physical harassment of the defacto complainant. The petition contends for bail on the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, asserting that the petitioners’ liberty should be protected to secure a fair trial. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail on the ground of ongoing investigation into matrimonial disputes and the seriousness of the alleged offences. The judge cites well-established bail jurisprudence, including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), to underscore that bail remains the norm and incarceration is exceptional. The court ultimately allows the bail application with stringent conditions: interrogate within two weeks; if arrest is contemplated, release on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; continue cooperation, not leave India without permission, refrain from similar offences, and permit recoveries if necessary; breach of conditions can lead to cancellation of bail. The order emphasizes personal liberty and the opportunity for a fair trial while maintaining investigatory integrity.
RPFC Nos.400 & 468 of 2014 The High Court of Kerala (Mary Joseph, J.) disposed of two revision petitions filed under R.P.(F.C.) Nos.400 and 468 of 2014, challenging the Family Court, Kozhikode’s order in MC No.73 of 2013. The Family Court had awarded maintenance to the wife and child and directed additional education-related payments, with a yearly 10% enhancement and a lumpsum Rs.30,000 payable before June 30 each year. The revision petitions questioned both the quantum and the structure of maintenance, contending lack of cogent proof of the husband’s income and misapprehension of the wife’s financial status; they argued for lower maintenance and for scuttling the annual lumpsum education payment. Conversely, the respondents contended that the husband’s income and earning capacity justified higher maintenance; they urged adherence to the court’s ordered education-related payments. The High Court examined the documentary evidence and oral evidence produced in MC 73/2013, noting the absence of reliable, independent proof of the husband’s substantial income and the wife’s limited, intermittent employment. It invoked Ajitha Kumari to emphasize the burden on the wife to prove the husband’s income, found the evidence insufficient, and partially allowed the revisions: reducing the wife’s monthly maintenance from Rs.10,000 to Rs.7,000, increasing the child’s maintenance from Rs.7,000 to Rs.10,000, and setting aside the Rs.30,000 annual lumpsum education payment and its 10% annual increase. The interim maintenance adjustment and the mother’s authority to receive payments were upheld. Overall disposition: partial relief to both sides with recalibrated maintenance, effective from the petition date.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal, filed by the legal heirs of deceased Kunhikrishanan K., arises from an award in O.P. (MV) No.536/2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod. On 10-10-2004, the deceased was travelling in a jeep when a bus collided with it, resulting in fatal injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,33,000 with 9% interest, which the appellants challenge, arguing that the compensation for loss of dependency and other heads was miscalculated. The appellants contend that the deceased’s income in 2004 should be higher (relying on Ramachandrappa) and that the correct multiplier and deduction for personal expenses from four dependants (Sarla Verma principle) should be applied, with future prospects added (25%). They also seek enhanced amounts for loss of consortium (as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram), funeral expenses, and loss of estate. The insurer contends the Tribunal’s methods were incorrect, advocating a lower deduction and a multiplier of 14. The High Court, after considering the arguments and applying relevant precedents, partially allows the appeal, recalculating enhanced compensation at Rs. 4,97,000 with 8% interest from the date of application, while excluding 1145 days of delay as per an earlier order."
W.P.(C) No. 15424 of 2021 This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns the birth registration of an abandoned girl child who was found in 2007 on a Chennai–Thiruvananthapuram Superfast Express and subsequently cared for by an orphanage (YWCA, Kottayam) and later by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner, now an adult, seeks issuance of a birth certificate declaring her date of birth as 1 January 2002 and a nativity certificate from Kottayam. The Registrar of Births and Deaths rejected the application on 26 July 2021 on grounds that birth registration requires details (place of birth, date, parents) not available, and that registration under delayed-registration provisions would require orders under Section 13(3) and Rule 9(3). The petition relies on statutory provisions (Section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 9 of the Kerala Rules, 1999) and on Government circulars permitting alternative approaches in cases lacking birth records, such as reliance on school records, medical certificates, Aadhaar, and declarations from credible persons. The Court notes that the verification under Section 13(3) is essentially about the fact of birth, not the exact date, and that public documents enjoy a presumption of correctness per Jigya Yadav v. CBSE and Velu v. Madathi. The judgment directs the Registrar to register the birth following the circulars or two credible-declaration options, to issue orders within a month, and to issue the birth and nativity certificates accordingly.
