Correction of Date of Birth in School Certificates Permissible to Ensure Consistency With Public Documents

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the CBSE to correct his date of birth in his Class X certificate from 01.10.2003 to 01.10.2002

The petitioner was born on 01.10.2002 at Holy Family Hospital, and a birth certificate was issued by the MCD reflecting this date

However, a subsequent birth certificate issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh erroneously recorded the date as 01.10.2003, which was used for school admission and recorded by the CBSE

After obtaining a new passport and Aadhaar card reflecting the original date of 01.10.2002, the petitioner requested a correction from the respondents, which was ignored

The CBSE opposed the petition on grounds of inordinate delay and the existence of two conflicting birth certificates

1. Whether the relief sought by the petitioner is barred by the doctrine of limitation or inordinate delay.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his Class X certificate corrected to ensure consistency with other foundational public documents.

the Supreme Court’s decision in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (2021), which establishes that a person can have only one legal date of birth and that certificates should be consistent with foundational public documents

principles from the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CBSE v. Prema Evelyn D Cruz and Anr. (2023), which held that public documents issued by competent authorities carry a statutory presumption of correctness and that corrections can be directed even after significant lapses of time (e.g., 22 years) to protect a citizen's right to accurate public records

The court rejected the CBSE’s objection regarding limitation, noting that precedents allow for corrections even after decades to ensure a citizen’s records are accurate

The court observed that the petitioner’s hospital records, MCD birth certificate, Aadhaar card, and current passport all consistently reflect 01.10.2002

While the CBSE pointed to the existence of two birth certificates, the court held that since the validity of the certificates was not being challenged, the priority was to make the Class X certificate consistent with the preponderance of other government-verified documents

The court reasoned that maintaining two different dates of birth across public records is impermissible and contrary to law

Furthermore, the court found that correcting the record would cause no prejudice to the respondents

The petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the Class X certificate from 01.10.2003 to 01.10.2002 to ensure consistency with his other public documents