IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.38423/2018 (LB-BMP) Between:
1. Sanjib Das S/o. Nantu Das, Aged about 41 years 2. Bina Das W/o Sanjib Das Aged about 30 years Both residing at # 82/A, 16th Cross, Lakshmipuram, Ulsoor, Bengaluru – 560 008. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Sanjay Gowda N.S., Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Registrar of Births & Deaths Office of the BBMP, Statistical Division, 1st Floor, BBMP Commercial Complex, Behind Upparpet Police Station, Tank Bund Road, Bengaluru – 560 009. ... Respondents (By Sri. Ashwin S. Halady, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the R-1 at Annexure – C and direct the respondent to rectify the register of births by entering the name of 1st petitioner as “Sanjib Das” instead of Sandeep Das and that of 2nd petitioner as “ Bina Das’ instead of “Beena Das” in registration No.11038 on 28.10.2008.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners are the parents of Deep Das, who was born in Vani Vilas Hospital on 01.10.2008. Upon an application being made for entry in the register of birth, the birth certificate has been issued, the copy of which is produced at Annexure – A. The entry relating to the name of the child is shown as Deep Das, the name of mother is shown as Beena Das, the name of father is shown as Sandeep Das. The said entry in the register of birth was effected on 28.10.2008.
2. The petitioners who are the parents of the child have noticed that their names have been misspelled, insofar as in the birth certificate, the name of the 1st petitioner has been entered as ‘Sandeep Das’, while the name of the mother has been shown as ‘Beena Das’. Petitioner No.1 has made a representation on 18.05.2018 seeking for appropriate correction as regards the names of the petitioners to the extent of rectifying the spelling errors. The said representation has been annexed with other enclosures.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in all the documents relating to the petitioners including the Aadhar Card issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, the identity card issued by Election Commission of India and the PAN (Permanent Account Number) Card issued by the Income Tax Department as well as educational records of their son, the names of the parents have been spelt correctly. The petitioners have also executed an Indemnity Bond, the copy of which is produced at Annexure – B10. It is stated that all these documents have been submitted to the respondent authority. An endorsement has come to be issued as per Annexure – C stating as follows:
“vÀAzÉAiÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ M§âgÀzÉà JAzÀÄ ¥ÀĶÖPÀj¸ÀĪÀ zÁR¯É ¸À°è¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÉ.”
4. The said endorsement has been assailed in the present writ petition. It is contended that the endorsement is illegal insofar as they have produced all relevant supporting materials to evidence the spelling errors that has occurred and case has been made out for rectification. The authority has issued the endorsement without assigning appropriate reasons and in fact it ought to have rectified the entries instead.
The petitioners further state that they have been orally informed that the rectification could not be made and they are required to approach the Magistrate and follow the procedure as provided for under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ for short). Hence, the petitioners have sought for an appropriate direction.
The petitioners point out that the power to rectify is clearly provided for under Section 15 of the Act, which provides for correction of an entry, if it is found to be erroneous in “form or substance”. It is also submitted that Rule 11(4) made under Section 30(2)(c) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 i.e. Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 provides that the Registrar has the power to correct an entry which is stated to be ‘erroneous in substance’ upon production by the person concerned of a declaration stating the nature of the error and true facts of the case.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that the power of correction as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act relates to correction only of the entry relating to birth or death of the concerned, hence, the question of seeking correction of the names of the parents is not contemplated. It is further stated that the representation having been made in the year 2018, when the birth certificate itself was issued in the year 2008, there has been inordinate delay and hence, the question of issuing any direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners request at this point of time does not arise.
6. Having heard the learned counsel of both the sides, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
1. Whether the endorsement is sustainable in law?
2. Whether power is vested in the Registrar to correct entries made out to be erroneous?
7. The facts are undisputed that the correct spelling of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is ‘Sanjib Das’ and ‘Bina Das’. The said fact is supported by documents that has been produced at Annexure – B2 to B9. The Indemnity Bond has also been produced stating the details as are relevant to enable consideration of the request of the petitioners.
The endorsement states that the entries cannot be corrected as the documents supporting such correction of error are not sufficient. It is also the petitioners’ contention that he has been told that power is not available under the Act to rectify the errors. This aspect of the matter requires to be addressed to provide ensure finality to the addressing the grievance of the petitioners.
Insofar as Section 15 of the Act is concerned, it is clear that the Registrar is conferred with the power to correct any error in ‘form or substance’ as regards any entry of birth or death in the Register. The contention that correction of entry is only as regards the name of the person which is subject matter of the entry relating to the person who has been born, cannot be accepted. Any entry other than the name of the person who is born, which may find a place in the Register would be an entry capable of being corrected in terms of the power conferred under Section 15 of the Act. The names of the parents of the person who is born are also relevant entries and could be stated to be ancillary to the main entry i.e., the name of the person who is born. Hence, the power of Section 15 of the Act would extend to rectifying the entries other than that of the person who is born which is found in the register. The nature of correction that is sought, being a spelling error would also be an error that could be described to be an error in form as referred to under Section 15 of the Act. Rule 11(4) is also clear and provides for rectification of the entry if it is found to be ‘erroneous in substance’ and could be made in the manner prescribed.
8. Clearly in the facts of the case the nature of error that has been complained of is one that should be rectified in terms of power conferred under Section 15 read with Rule 11(4). As regards the contention of the respondent that the application filed is belated, it is to be noted that in the absence of any restrictions as regards to the time within which such application can the statute made, it would not be appropriate to read into the statute any restriction for making an application for correcting such entry. In fact in contra distinction to Section 13 of the Act no such restriction in terms of time for making an application for correction of erroneous entries is found.
9. Accordingly, in the light of the observations made above, the endorsement issued to the petitioner at Annexure-C is set aside. Respondent to consider the application of the petitioners for rectification of the names of the petitioners as found in the Register of the Birth, in light of the application, supporting documents and in the light of the observations made above. The petitioners to furnish such other documents as may be required for the purpose of considering the request. The consideration of the request of the petitioner would be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of release of the judgment subject to the petitioners providing all such necessary information and records as may be required to enable the respondent authority to take a decision as regards their representation.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY