Statutory authorities must decide pending applications for correction of birth certificates within a stipulated timeframe.

The petitioner’s son’s birth certificate was issued by Respondent No. 2 on 23.08.2018.

Although the date of birth was correct, the son’s name was erroneously recorded as "Jayesh" instead of "Jay".

The petitioner submitted a representation for correction to Respondent No. 2 on 29.02.2024, followed by a subsequent representation on 02.06.2025.

Due to the respondent authority's failure to take action or decide on these applications, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus for the name correction or a direction to the authorities to decide the pending applications.

1. Whether the respondent authority failed to exercise its statutory duty by keeping the applications for correction of the birth entry pending for an unreasonable period.

2. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to direct the respondent to decide the pending applications in a time-bound manner.

The Court primary considered the petitioner's rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of writs.

Substantively, the matter was governed by Sections 14 and 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

Section 15 specifically provides the statutory framework for the "Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths" by the Registrar upon being satisfied that an entry is erroneous in form or substance.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s applications for name correction had been pending before Respondent No. 2 since February 2024 and June 2025.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the respondent did not contest the pendency of the applications but requested a reasonable timeframe for the authority to reach a decision.

The Court found that the persistent inaction of the respondent authority necessitated judicial intervention to ensure the statutory applications were processed.

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the name change itself, the Court focused on the procedural failure of the authority to decide the matter "in accordance with law".

The Court held that the pending applications must be resolved by the statutory authority.

Consequently, it directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's applications dated 29.02.2024 and 02.06.2025 as early as possible, and preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in accordance with the prevailing law.

Direct service was permitted to expedite the process.