Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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