Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting 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

Latest Legal News