01Facts
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
p. 2The petitioner was born on 01.10.2002 at Holy Family Hospital, and a birth certificate was issued by the MCD reflecting this date
¶ 2However, 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
¶ 3After 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
¶ 4-5The CBSE opposed the petition on grounds of inordinate delay and the existence of two conflicting birth certificates
¶ 8-902Issues
i.1. Whether the relief sought by the petitioner is barred by the doctrine of limitation or inordinate delay.
¶ 8, 13ii.2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his Class X certificate corrected to ensure consistency with other foundational public documents.
¶ 14-1503Law Applied
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
¶ 14principles 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
¶ 13Provisions in the judgment · 1
Registration Of Births And Deaths Act, 1969 Section 12, 17
04Reasoning
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
¶ 13The court observed that the petitioner’s hospital records, MCD birth certificate, Aadhaar card, and current passport all consistently reflect 01.10.2002
¶ 11-12, 16While 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
¶ 16The court reasoned that maintaining two different dates of birth across public records is impermissible and contrary to law
¶ 15Furthermore, the court found that correcting the record would cause no prejudice to the respondents
¶ 1705Holding
The court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the petitioner is entitled to the correction despite the delay.
¶ 18-19The 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
¶ 18-19Original Court PDF
Shayan AmirvsCbse & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
