Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 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