MP High Court sets aside cancellation of viral Kumbh woman’s birth record, orders fresh decision after hearing her

Petitioner No. 1’s birth was registered on the basis of her parents’ application, recording her date of birth as 1 January 2008; a certificate was issued on 5 June 2025.

After she married Petitioner No. 2 on 11 March 2026, her father sought correction of the birth record, relying on a hospital entry that recorded a birth on 30 December 2009.

The Chief Municipal Officer cancelled the earlier entry and corrected the record without giving Petitioner No. 1 notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioners challenged that action under Article 226, alleging, among other things, violation of natural justice and seeking restoration of the earlier certificate.

The respondents disputed her age and raised, among other objections, the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Whether the correction and cancellation of Petitioner No. 1’s birth-record entry, without notice to her or an opportunity to be heard, violated the principles of natural justice

Whether the availability of an alternative remedy barred the petitioners from invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, read with Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2024, provides for correction or cancellation of an erroneous or improperly made entry.

Rule 11(7) requires intimation of a correction or cancellation to the permanent address of the person who supplied the information.

The principles of audi alteram partem and Article 14 require a fair hearing before State action causing adverse civil consequences, unless an exception applies; the Court relied on Mohinder Singh Gill, Maneka Gandhi, Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and DTC Mazdoor Congress.

The Court also applied the rule that an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar Article 226 review, particularly where natural justice has been violated, as recognized in Whirlpool Corporation and Radha Krishan Industries.

The Court considered the birth-record correction consequential because it affected Petitioner No. 1’s claimed majority and associated civil rights, including adult suffrage and personal choice.

Although Rule 11(7) provides for intimation to the person who gave the original information, the Court held that notice to the father alone did not satisfy audi alteram partem where Petitioner No. 1 was directly affected by the correction.

Because she had neither been intimated nor given an effective opportunity to be heard, the correction was procedurally unfair.

That natural-justice violation also brought the case within an exception to the alternative-remedy rule, so the writ petition was maintainable.

The Court did not determine which date of birth was correct; it directed that the father’s application be reconsidered after hearing Petitioner No. 1.

It directed Respondent No. 5 to decide the father’s application afresh after affording Petitioner No. 1 an effective hearing in accordance with law.

The petition was disposed of, with pending applications, if any, closed.