"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Karnataka High Court Orders Inclusion of Petitioner's Name in Birth Certificate"

04 September 2024 11:35 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking verdict delivered on the 1st of September, 2023, the Karnataka High Court, led by THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, issued a significant ruling that has far-reaching implications for birth certificates and individuals seeking the inclusion of their names.

The case, bearing Writ Petition No. 18413 of 2023, revolved around Fathima Richelle Mather, a 23-year-old Indian citizen pursuing her Master's in Management Program at IE University in Madrid, Spain. The petitioner was born on April 28, 2000, at Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital in Bangalore. While her birth certificate included her parents' names, it did not mention her own name.

The petitioner's predicament arose when she needed her birth certificate for employment purposes. She applied to the Corporation for the inclusion of her name in the birth certificate, only to have her request rejected based on the notion that a 15-year period for such inclusion had expired in 2020.

Sri. Rakesh B Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner, argued vehemently that all other official documents correctly identified the petitioner and her parents. He contended that the denial of such a straightforward request was unjust.

On the other side, Sri. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the respondent-corporation, invoked the Ministry of Home Affairs' instructions to justify the rejection. However, the court noted that these instructions were not communicated to the petitioner and that the responsibility for such communication rested with the Corporation.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj's verdict is a resounding affirmation of individual rights. The judge ruled that the denial based on a 15-year rule was unwarranted and disproportionately affected minors. Moreover, it was deemed unfair to penalize the petitioner for a clerical error made by her parents.

This judgment sets a crucial precedent for cases involving birth certificates and their amendment. It underscores the importance of fairness and the recognition of individuals' rights, particularly when discrepancies arise from clerical errors beyond their control.

Date of Decision: 01 SEPTEMBER, 2023

FATHIMA RICHELLE MATHER  Versus THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEALTHS  AND COMMISSIONER

Similar News