Father Says Wife’s Name Was Misrecorded; Madras HC Requires Inquiry And Jamath Affidavit Before Correcting Son’s Birth Certificate

In brief

The question

1. Whether the refusal to correct the mother’s name in the birth register, and the requirement of Gazette publication, could stand in light of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the second respondent to conduct an inquiry involving the petitioner, his parents, and two office-bearers of the relevant Jamath, and to receive the affidavit specified in the order concerning the name by which the petitioner’s wife continued to be known.

It also directed

Upon receipt of the required affidavit, the birth entry was to be corrected and a fresh certificate issued within four weeks.

The Court made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

01Facts

The petitioner sought correction of the mother’s name in his son’s birth certificate, from “A. Hasna Fathima” to “M. Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi.”

pp. 2–4

He said his marriage to M. Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi was registered under the Special Marriage Act and that her other identity records continued to bear that name.

pp. 2–4

The Corporation rejected his application and directed him to obtain a Gazette publication of the name change.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–4

The Court noted that the petitioner had supplied the hospital with the name “A. Hasna Fathima,” while other records bore “M. Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi,” and that the materials raised an issue concerning conversion to Islam.

pp. 5–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the refusal to correct the mother’s name in the birth register, and the requirement of Gazette publication, could stand in light of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000.

pp. 4–6

ii.2. Whether the requested correction could be considered on the evidence and declarations directed by the Court, given the disputed identity and conversion-related circumstances.

pp. 5–7

03Law Applied

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 empowers correction or cancellation of an erroneous entry in the register.

pp. 4–6

Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000 provides for correction of an entry alleged to be erroneous in substance on production of a declaration setting out the error and the true facts, made by two credible persons with knowledge of the case.

pp. 4–6

The Court also considered S. Gowthami v. The District Collector, Tiruppur District and Minor S. Jeganathan, represented by his mother S. Sellammal v. The District Collector, Erode District, but held that those decisions were only partially applicable because they did not address a case involving a parent’s conversion.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 Section 15

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner’s account—that his wife continued to be known as M. Illaya Kanmani Nanmozhi—was supported by her other records, but also noted that the petitioner himself had supplied “A. Hasna Fathima” to the hospital and that the record raised a conversion-related question.

pp. 5–7

In light of those circumstances and Rule 11(4), the Court directed an inquiry and required supporting evidence from the petitioner’s family and the relevant Jamath office-bearers rather than ordering an unconditional correction.

pp. 6–7