After Mother’s Remarriage, Son’s Original Birth Record Keeps Deceased Father’s Name; Madras HC Directs Form 1-A Certificate

In brief

The question

1. Whether the name of the petitioner’s son’s biological father could be replaced with the name of the petitioner’s subsequent husband in the birth record

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with directions that the biological/natural father’s name not be substituted and that the authorities issue the petitioner a birth certificate in Form 1-A, making entries in columns 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

It also directed

The original birth-certificate entry was to remain otherwise unaltered. No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner’s son was born in 2013, and his birth certificate recorded his biological father, K. Saravanan, as his father. Saravanan died in 2015; the petitioner later married K. Mohan in 2017.

p. 2

Seeking to have Mohan’s name substituted in the birth certificate so that the son’s school records could be amended before his Class 10 examinations, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 11 June 2026. When no action followed, she sought a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the name of the petitioner’s son’s biological father could be replaced with the name of the petitioner’s subsequent husband in the birth record

pp. 6–7

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a birth certificate in Form 1-A recording the relevant details of the subsequent husband without altering the original birth-certificate entry

p. 7

03Law Applied

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 permits correction or cancellation of an entry in the birth register where it is erroneous in form or substance, or was fraudulently or improperly made; the original entry is not to be erased, and any correction is made by a marginal entry.

pp. 4–5

The Court also relied on the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, including Rule 5 and Form 1-A, which provide for the recording of adoptive-parent details separately from those of the natural parents.

pp. 5–6

Applying its earlier decision in O.P. No. 103 of 2020, the Court stated that a biological father’s name cannot be substituted by that of another person as the natural father, while the prescribed Form 1-A may be issued with the relevant additional particulars.

pp. 3–4, 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 13 Section 15 Section 30

04Reasoning

The Court treated the requested change as an impermissible substitution of the biological father’s name, rather than a correction of an erroneous birth entry.

pp. 6–7

Relying on its earlier decision and the statutory and regulatory framework, it declined to direct that K. Mohan be recorded as the child’s biological or natural father. Instead, it directed the authorities to issue a Form 1-A certificate recording the specified additional particulars while leaving the original birth certificate unaltered.

pp. 6–7