Registrar must exercise statutory power under Section 15 to correct birth certificate entries based on adoption.

The petitioner’s wife, Nehalben, had a daughter, Anushree, from her previous marriage to Pareshkumar Tilva

Following a mutual consent divorce in 2022, Nehalben retained sole custody.

Subsequently, she married the petitioner, Pareshbhai Makavana, and the couple legally adopted Anushree via a registered Adoption Deed

To reflect the new legal reality and avoid future administrative difficulties, the petitioner applied to Respondent No. 2 (the Registrar) to update the father’s name and mother’s surname in the child's birth certificate

Respondent No. 2 issued a communication dated 15/21.12.2023, refusing the request on the grounds that such corrections require a court order and that no statutory provision permitted the change otherwise

The petitioner challenged this refusal under Article 226 of the Constitution

The court primarily applied Section 15 of the Births and Deaths Registrations Act, 1969, which empowers the Registrar to correct "erroneous in form or substance" entries if they are proved to his satisfaction

This is read in conjunction with Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, which provides the procedural framework for correcting substantive errors upon production of a declaration by two credible persons

The court heavily relied on the precedent set in Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2008 (1) GLH 556), which established that the power to correct "substance" is a wide expression not limited to clerical errors and that a writ of mandamus lies if the authority refuses to exercise this statutory duty

The Court observed that Section 15 and Rule 11 unequivocally vest the Registrar with the power to make substantive corrections in the birth register

The Court criticized Respondent No. 2 for passing a "stereotyped order" that ignored established law and unnecessarily shifted the burden onto the petitioner to obtain a court decree

By failing to consider the registered Adoption Deed and the statutory provisions, the authority neglected its duty to satisfy itself regarding the veracity of the requested change

The Court noted that the terminology "erroneous in form or substance" is of wide amplitude and covers instances where parentage changes due to legal processes like adoption

The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh application within one week and ordered the Respondent – Authority to decide the application on its merits in accordance with the law within four weeks.

Additionally, the Court directed the State Government to ensure this legal position is circulated to all competent authorities to prevent multifarious litigation on settled issues