Madras HC Orders Birth-Date Correction Despite 40-Year Delay, Citing Man’s School, Passport And ID Records

The petitioner’s birth register and certificate recorded his date of birth as 3 March 1987, while his school certificates, Aadhaar, voter ID, passport and postgraduate degree certificate recorded it as 2 March 1987.

After a previous order directed the Corporation to consider his representation in light of the documents and his overseas employment, the Assistant City Health Officer rejected his request for correction.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226 and sought correction of the register and issuance of a revised certificate. The Corporation relied on the approximately 40-year delay and the inability to verify the original birth records.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It recognised that a request to correct a birth entry should be made within a reasonable time and that the petitioner’s 40-year delay constituted delay and laches.

The Court also relied on its earlier order in WP(MD) No. 25042 of 2026, which had directed the authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in light of the documents showing 2 March 1987 as his date of birth.

No other statute or precedent was cited; the Court expressly stated that its decision was confined to the peculiar circumstances and laid down no ratio.

Although the petitioner was guilty of delay and the Corporation could not be faulted for refusing correction in the absence of verifiable hospital records, the earlier order had specifically required consideration of the petitioner’s supporting documents.

The Court gave decisive weight to the consistent date of birth shown in the petitioner’s school, passport and other records, as against the date in the birth register, and granted relief on the particular facts despite the delay.

The directions were to be completed within six weeks of receipt of the order; the petition was disposed of with no costs, and the Court clarified that the decision was limited to the case’s peculiar circumstances and established no ratio.