“Public Document Carry A Statutory Presumption Of Correctness”: Delhi High Court Rejects CBSE’s Refusal To Correct Date Of Birth Citing Bye-Law Limitation
The Court said that once a statutory public document like a birth certificate is not disputed, there is no reason for the CBSE to deny correction in its certificate, even if the request is made after the time limit prescribed in its bye-laws.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) challenging a direction to correct the date of birth in the Class X certificate of the Respondent, holding that the Board could not disregard an undisputed statutory birth certificate merely on the ground of limitation.
A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “This Court fails to understand the vehemence with which the matter is being opposed… A citizen of this Country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public documents that pertain to them.”
The Court added, “There is thus an imminent need to ensure that all official documents are in consonance with each other, as this not only provides certainty regarding specific details contained in public documents but also helps preserve the identity of a citizen, with the date of birth being an essential facet.”
Advocate M.A. Niyazi appeared for CBSE, while Advocate Rony O. John represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Respondent had approached the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition seeking correction of her date of birth in her Class X passing certificate issued by the CBSE. Her correct date of birth was recorded in her birth certificate issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
It was contended that the incorrect entry in the CBSE records had occurred due to an inadvertent mistake made by the Respondent’s agent while filling out the examination form. The Single Judge accepted the explanation and directed CBSE to issue a corrected certificate.
The CBSE, the Appellant herein, challenged the order of the Single Judge, arguing that such correction was barred under Rule 69.2 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, 1995, which permits correction of date of birth only within two years of the declaration of the result. It also claimed that the relevant records had been destroyed under the CBSE Weeding Out Rules, 1998.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court considered whether the Respondent was entitled to have her date of birth corrected in her CBSE certificate despite the expiry of the limitation period under the bye-laws, and whether a statutory birth certificate issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation could override the school or CBSE records.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, wherein it had been held that a narrow reading of the functions of the Board would leave glaring gaps in the field of school education and may jeopardise the welfare of students with legitimate concerns.
The Court noted that statutory documents such as birth certificates carry a presumption of correctness under the Indian Evidence Act. “…Public documents, such as an official birth certificate issued by the competent authority, carry a statutory presumption of correctness under the law. In the present case, there exists no cogent reason for the Board to disregard the said document”, it added.
The Court also noted that other official documents, including Aadhaar, PAN, Passport, and Voter ID, had already been corrected to reflect the Respondent’s actual date of birth, and as such, the refusal by the Appellant to update the CBSE record would create inconsistency in official documents.
The Bench observed that the Single Judge had correctly held, “Failure to exercise jurisdiction may put the petitioner to serious hardship. Hence, to render justice, it is always open for the Court to pass appropriate orders, taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case… Therefore, failure to exercise jurisdiction will result in injustice to the petitioner.”
The Division Bench further remarked, “The CBSE is a record keeper of considerable importance, as has been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav… The matriculation certificate of a person is considered an unassailable proof of date of birth.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed CBSE’s appeal, and held that the Respondent’s request was genuine, supported by valid public records, and consistent with her identity in other official documents.
Cause Title: Central Board of Secondary Education v. Prema Evelyn D’Cruz & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4869-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates M.A. Niyazi, Anamika Ghai Niyazi, Kirti Bhardwaj, Arquam Ali, Nohmat Sethi
Respondent: Advocates Rony O. John, Arshdeep Singh
