### Registrar Duty-Bound to Correct Birth Entry Errors Based on Satisfactory Documentary Evidence Summary: The High Court of Gujarat directed the Surat Municipal Corporation to process a name correction in a Birth Register under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The Court held that when an inadvertent error in a birth entry is demonstrated through school records and Aadhaar data, the Registrar must verify the evidence and issue a corrected certificate.

The Petitioner, born on April 23, 2012, sought to correct her name in the Birth Register from "Hibah Mohamed Javed Shaikh" to her correct name, "Ayesha Mohamed Javed Shaikh"

Following the death of her mother in 2015 and the incarceration of her father, the Petitioner has been under the care of a guardian; her school records and Aadhaar card correctly reflect the name "Ayesha"

The discrepancy was discovered during an application for an APAAR ID

On February 3, 2026, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent Registrar (Surat Municipal Corporation) for correction, but the Respondent refused, claiming a lack of authority to make such changes

Consequently, the Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Respondent authority improperly failed to exercise its statutory power to correct an entry in the Birth Register under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a direction for the correction of her name based on supporting documentary evidence

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which empowers the Registrar to correct erroneous entries in the register if it is proved to their satisfaction that an entry is erroneous in form or substance

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the court's extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure the protection of the Petitioner's rights to accurate identification for educational purposes

The court noted that the Petitioner’s correct name, "Ayesha Mohamed Javed Shaikh," is already utilized and verified in significant official documents, including her school records and Aadhaar Card

The court found that the Respondent’s refusal to consider the application on the grounds of "no authority" was inconsistent with the statutory mandate of Section 15 of the Act, which specifically provides the Registrar with the power to correct errors upon the production of satisfactory evidence

Given the Petitioner’s urgent need for correct records to transition to Standard 9, the court determined that the Respondent must verify the provided documents rather than summarily rejecting the application

The court ordered that, upon satisfaction of the evidence, a fresh birth certificate correctly naming the Petitioner as "Ayesha Mohamed Javed Shaikh" must be issued within six weeks

Rule made absolute