To protect a child from an erroneous birth record, Kerala High Court orders father’s name changed without a DNA test

B had been married to C; their marriage was dissolved by a decree dated 10 November 2021. B later entered into a live-in relationship with A, and a child was born to them on 4 February 2026. The child’s birth register mistakenly recorded C as the father.

A and B applied to the Corporation to substitute A’s name, but the Registrar did not entertain the request, stating that the existing entry could not be changed. C was served with notice, which was returned unclaimed; the Court declared service complete. The petitioners sought a direction to correct the father’s name in the register.

Whether the Registrar could correct the child’s recorded father’s name under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, on the facts presented

Whether the High Court could invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 and its protective role as parens patriae to direct correction where the statutory procedure did not provide an effective remedy

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, limit a Registrar’s authority to correcting qualifying errors; they do not ordinarily empower the Registrar to resolve disputed paternity.

The Court referred to the Government circular dated 16 December 2015, which, as described in the judgment, requires a DNA report, a notarised agreement, and an order of a competent court for a change in the father’s name in birth records.

It relied on Anitha C. v. State of Kerala, 2026 (2) KHC 313, including its recognition that the High Court may grant relief under Article 226 in an appropriate case.

The Court also invoked the parens patriae doctrine, under which courts may act to protect a minor’s welfare and best interests, and referred to Shephali Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2026 KHC 6457.

The Court accepted that the requested substitution did not fall within the ordinary correction powers under Section 15 and Rule 11, and that the Registrar was therefore justified in declining to act under those provisions.

However, it treated this case as exceptional: the petitioners asserted that A was the child’s father, the application was supported by affidavits, and C did not appear after service was declared complete.

The Court considered that requiring the child to undergo DNA testing in the absence of a paternity dispute would impose an unnecessary burden on her.

To prevent the child from suffering because of an erroneous entry and the limits of the statutory remedy, the Court invoked Article 226 and its parens patriae jurisdiction.

The Court directed the Registrar to correct the father’s name from C to A by a marginal entry, without altering the original register entry, and to issue a fresh birth certificate within 30 days of receiving the judgment.

It also directed the Registry to mask the parties’ and child’s identifying details in the online judgment and to forward copies of the judgment to the Union of India and specified Kerala Government officials.