Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

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