The Kerala High Court has observed that Authorities should adopt a lenient approach in matters of registration of birth and strict evidence should not be insisted upon.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking quashing of a communication denying registration of birth on ground of being violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The single bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman observed, "....Since, this is relating to the question of registration of a birth, a lenient approach ought to have been made and strict evidence should not have been insisted upon. Under normal circumstances, no one needs to make up a false story with respect to the place of birth of a child, and the same is also not likely to cause any prejudice to any person or affect the rights of any other person."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate S.K. Adhithayan while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Sasith MR.

Facts of the Case

The case of the Petitioners was that the Petitioner was birthed at the residence of one of the relative without any medical aid. The father of the child intimated the fact of birth to the Secretary of Panchayath and requested for issuance of a birth certificate. However, the said Application was rejected on the reason that, after an inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent, it was reported that, there is no evidence that the child was born within the jurisdiction of that ward as claimed by the Petitioners and they are also not residing within the residence.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, took note of the two affidavits produced by Counsel for the Petitioner of two persons including the residence of the house situated within the jurisdiction of the Panchayath where the birth took place.

It mentioned Section 8(1) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which states that in respect of birth and death in a house, the information has to be submitted to the Registrar by the head of the house or, in case more than one household live in the house, the head of the household, the person, who is so recognized by the house or the household, and if he is not present in the house at any time during the period within which the birth or death has to be reported, the nearest relative of the head present in the house, and in the absence of any such person, the oldest adult person present therein during the said period;

"....the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, it is the specific case of the petitioners that, the birth of the 1st Petitioner occurred in the residence before any medical assistance could be secured. Therefore, there is no medical evidence to substantiate the said birth. Therefore, it is natural that, in the report, Superintendent CHC Mayyanad, could not include the evidence of the birth occurred in the residence referred to above. However, merely because Superintendent CHC could not collect any evidence regarding the birth, that by itself cannot be a reason for the Panchayath to reject the application submitted by the 2nd petitioner in this regard. The proper course ought to have adopted by the Panchayath is to find out other sources to verify whether the birth, as claimed by the petitioner, indeed had taken place within their jurisdiction. It is evident from Ext.P3 that no such exercise has been done before issuing the said order," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Ummu Kulsoom vs. Mayyanad Grama Panchayath (2025:KER:14093)

Appearances:

Petitioners- Advocate S.K. Adhithayan, Advocate Althaf Nabeel

Respondent- Advocate Sasith MR

Click here to read/ download Order







Kerala High CourtJustice Ziyad Rahman

Sheetal Joon