Registrar of Births and Deaths Must Decide Applications for Parental Name Changes Based on Registered Adoption Deeds within Stipulated Timelines.

The petitioner and his wife, being childless, adopted "Jatin," the biological son of the petitioner’s brother, Maheshbhai Muljibhai Solanki

A formal adoption deed was executed on March 22, 2022, and registered with the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad-6 (Naroda) under Registration No. 7095/2022

Following the adoption, a change of name to "Solanki Jatin Karshanbhai" was published in the official gazette on September 21, 2023

The petitioner applied to the respondent authority on April 20, 2026, to update the birth certificate to reflect the adoptive parents' names in the father and mother columns

Due to administrative inaction on the application, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus

1. Whether the respondent authority is legally obligated to decide an application for correction of entries in a birth certificate based on a registered adoption deed and gazette notification

2. Whether the court should direct a time-bound disposal of the pending application for the correction of parental names in the birth records

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in conjunction with the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and the Rules framed thereunder

The primary principle applied is the duty of the Registrar to consider and decide upon applications for correction or cancellation of entries in the register as per the statutory framework, especially when supported by legal instruments such as a registered adoption deed and a government gazette

The court noted that the petitioner had established a prima facie legal right to the requested change through a registered adoption deed and a subsequent gazette notification

Since the respondent authority had failed to respond to the petitioner's application dated April 20, 2026, despite "numerous efforts," the court found the administrative delay unjustified

During the hearing, the counsel for the respondent conceded that the application had been pending for a significant duration and did not oppose a direction for an expedited decision

Consequently, the court determined that the appropriate remedy was to compel the authority to exercise its statutory discretion within a fixed timeline rather than adjudicating the merits of the name change itself at this stage

The court directed the Registrar, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, to decide the petitioner’s application dated April 20, 2026, in accordance with the law within a period of three months from the receipt of the order

Rule was made absolute to this extent, with no order as to costs and permission for direct service