Registrar must exercise statutory power under Section 15 to correct birth entries based on reliable documentary evidence.

The petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 15/07/1981 in the birth register maintained by the Himmatnagar Nagarpalika based on details provided by Soni Nursing Home

all other official documents, including his Passport, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, and School Leaving Certificate, record his date of birth as 14/07/1981

The petitioner, needing a corrected certificate for employment and visa formalities in Kuwait, applied for a correction on 14/11/2024

Respondent No. 2 rejected the application via communication dated 14/12/2024, insisting upon a correction certificate from the nursing home

The petitioner moved the High Court challenging this refusal as arbitrary and contrary to statutory provisions.

1. Whether the Registrar of Births and Deaths has the authority and duty under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to correct an entry in the register based on reliable documentary evidence without insisting on hospital records

2. Whether the communication dated 14.12.2024 issued by Respondent No. 2, refusing the correction, is legally sustainable

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which empowers the Registrar to correct erroneous entries in form or substance

Rule 11 of the Gujarat Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004, which provides the procedure for correcting clerical, formal, or substantial errors

Nitaben Nareshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2008 (1) GLR 884), which established that the term "erroneous in form or substance" is of wide amplitude and that administrative guidelines cannot divest the Registrar of statutory duties to make corrections

The court observed that the entry in the birth register was prima facie erroneous when compared against the petitioner's consistently recorded birth date in other government documents

Respondent No. 2 failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by Section 15 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules by simply following a "stereotyped" approach of refusal

The court highlighted that administrative authorities cannot hide behind internal guidelines or insist on specific documents (like a hospital certificate) if the error is otherwise proved to their satisfaction through other credible evidence

The court further criticized the repeated failure of competent authorities to apply settled law, necessitating unnecessary litigation

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned communication. It directed Respondent No. 2 to correct the petitioner’s date of birth to 14/07/1981 in the register and issue a fresh birth certificate within four weeks.

The court directed the State Government (Respondent No. 1) to ensure that the legal principles regarding birth record corrections are circulated to all competent authorities to prevent multifarious litigation