BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION – Substitution of Father’s Name in Birth Register – Legitimate Paternity – Procedure for Correction/Cancellation of Entries.
(2025) 7 KCD 173 : 2025 KER 53171 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2473
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 112: A child born during the continuance of a valid marriage, or within 280 days after its dissolution if the mother remains unmarried, is considered conclusive proof of legitimacy as the son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties had no access to each other when the child could have been begotten. In the given case, as the child was born during the subsistence of the marriage, the petitioner is conclusively deemed to be the legitimate father in the absence of an admission by the parties or a declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, Section 15 and Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, Rule 11: These provisions outline the procedure for correcting or canceling an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths.
The Registrar can correct clerical or formal errors upon inquiry and satisfaction.
For entries asserted to be “erroneous in substance,” the Registrar may correct them upon production of a declaration by two credible persons with knowledge of the facts.
If an entry is proved to be fraudulently or improperly made, the Registrar must report it to the authorized officer and take action upon their direction.
Corrections or cancellations are made by suitable marginal entries without altering the original entry, and intimation must be sent to the person who gave the original information.
Scope of Registrar’s Powers: The powers conferred on a Registrar under Section 15 and Rule 11 are limited to the correction of clerical or formal errors or entries fraudulently or improperly made. These powers do not extend to adjudicating matters of disputed paternity, which require a full-fledged trial and judicial imprimatur.
Procedural Requirements for Changing Father’s Name (Ext.P19 Circular): According to Ext.P19 Circular dated 16.12.2015, if a father’s name needs to be changed in the birth records, it mandates the production of a DNA test report, an agreement attested before a Notary Public, and an order from a competent Court.
Principles of Natural Justice: Any changes to the birth register, especially those affecting a parent’s recorded status, must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties. The substitution of the petitioner’s name as the child’s father without notice or hearing the petitioner was deemed a flagrant violation of these principles.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner and the 7th respondent were married on 26.05.2010.
Their son (9th respondent) was born on 07.03.2011, and the petitioner’s name was initially recorded as the child’s father in the birth records.
The marriage was dissolved on 13.12.2011 by mutual consent.
Subsequently, the 4th respondent (Registrar of Births and Deaths) substituted the petitioner’s name with that of the 8th respondent as the child’s father in the Birth Register, based on a joint application from the 7th and 8th respondents. This was done without notice or hearing the petitioner.
The 2nd respondent (Municipality) justified the action by stating that the 7th and 8th respondents submitted certificates from a hospital, the Village Officer, two credible persons, and a copy of the SSLC book, certifying that the child was born to them.
The petitioner disputed a recital in an agreement (Ext.P3) that stated the 8th respondent was the biological father, asserting it was a unilateral statement.
Decision: The Court found the decision-making process leading to the substituted birth report (Ext.P16) and birth certificate (Ext.P17) to be erroneous and in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The Registrar had exceeded their powers by adjudicating a seriously disputed question of paternity in summary proceedings. The Court quashed Exts.P16 and P17 and directed the 4th respondent to reconsider the application submitted by respondents 7 and 8 in accordance with law, with proper notice to and hearing of the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8. The identities of the parties were directed to be anonymized in the judgment due to the sensitive nature of the matter.
