HC allows correction in DOB to be made in woman’s birth certificate on basis of educational documents

Read Order: Jyoti Bajaj vs. State of Haryana and others

Tulip Kanth 

Chandigarh, December 3, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana  High Court has allowed a petition seeking correction to be made in the date of birth of the petitioner in the birth certificate from December 19,1982 to December 17,1982 being a clerical mistake.

The petitioner pleaded that she was born to Smt. Laxmi and Sh. Kali Dass (parents) on December 17,1982 at CHC Hospital, Pataudi, District Gurugram. Petitioner was admitted in the school with the date of birth as December 17,1982 by her parents. Her date of birth is recorded as December 17,1982 in her middle standard examination certificate and matriculation certificate.

Issue in this case arose when petitioner applied for a green card and the USA Embassy had asked for the birth certificate. Petitioner applied for issuance of birth certificate. On seeing the birth certificate, it had been found that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly recorded as December 19 ,1982 instead of December 17 ,1982. The USA Embassy declined to issue a green card to the petitioner owing to the aforesaid discrepancy in her date of birth.Petitioner is 38 years of age and has been intending to go abroad to join her family.

It was submitted from the petitioner’s side that entry in the birth register is apparently wrong.It was also claimed that her date of birth as recorded in the school leaving certificate and other documents be treated to be validly recorded date of birth as against the birth entry.

The Bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh opined that it is a peculiar case based on its own facts. Middle school certificate, matriculation certificate, entries in the service record of the petitioner in respect of date of birth, Pan Card, Aadhaar Card, NPS Card and Haryana Family Identification Letter would show that the date of birth as December 17 ,1982 is claimed to be true date of birth of the petitioner. Even if, a civil suit is to be filed, the aforesaid documents would be the supportive and corroborative evidence in favour of the petitioner, on which the petitioner would lay emphasize in evidence.

The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner had specifically pleaded that her husband and children are in USA and she required a green card in order to join her family along with the fact that the petitioner had also specifically pleaded that she was not drawing any benefit out of such typographical change in the date of birth, rather she was claiming two days advancement in the date of birth and she would not be benefitted and was not taking benefit anywhere of correction in her date of birth from because in every document 17th December, is the date of birth shown.

The present case has a distinguishing feature from the earlier precedents and is a peculiar case of its own type. In the written statement, documents pleaded by the petitioner had  been evasively denied without any reference to a lawful criteria of inadmissibility of these documents. In fact no case law is applicable as the present case, added the Bench.

The High Court observed that it was due to some typographical error in the birth register based on the information furnished by one Devki Nurse on December 21,1982, the entry had been made in respect of alleged date of birth as December 19,1982, that too, under the solitary signature of Devki Nurse without countersignature of the Sub Registrar. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Resham Singh Vs. Union of India and another, the entry has to be viewed as doubtful and suspicious. 

Thus, the Bench accepted this writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to carry out necessary correction in the birth certificate of the petitioner and thereafter, do the needful in the context of supplying the same to the petitioner in accordance with law. 

The Court concluded the matter by stating that since the present case is a unique case of its own type and is not covered by the precedents on the subject matter, therefore, it cannot be cited as a precedent in other cases unless and until facts squarely fit in the frame of things.