Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 715 (PNJ)

Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2016-02-19

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This petition is filed by Gurwinder Singh and Sukhpal Kaur, who were married as per the Sikh rites on 02.11.2003. It is alleged that prior to her marriage, Sukhpal Kaur was also called as Pooja but her name Sukhpal Kaur is mentioned in the ration card and the middle standard certificate. The petitioners are blessed with two children; elder daughter is named as Diya, born on 22.09.2004 and a son, namely, Hargun Singh, was born on 22.04.2007. The daughter of the petitioners, namely, Diya Dhaliwal was born in the Civil Hospital, Sangrur and at that time, brother of petitioner No. 2 told her mother's name as Pooja to the hospital authorities. The daughter of the petitioners was admitted in DAV Public School, Patiala and presently, she is studying in Ajit Karam Singh International Public School, Sector 41B, Chandigarh. She had mentioned her mother's name as Sukhpal Kaur but in her birth certificate, it is mentioned as Pooja. The petitioners requested the school authorities to correct mother's name of their child Diya Dhaliwal from Pooja to Sukhpal Kaur in the school records but the school authorities orally asked the petitioners to first get the birth certificate corrected. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application on 06.11.2013 to the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Municipal Council, Sangrur along with an affidavit and self declaration, recommended by Ruldu Ram Kushdil, Councillor from Ward No. 1, Municipal Council, Patiala and Balbir Singh, Panch of the Gram Panchayat Nagar , Ward No. 5. The original application was returned to the petitioners by respondent No. 4 through the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur, asking them to first get the school records corrected. The petitioners then requested the school authorities for correction but they did not pay any heed to their request and hence, the present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No. 3 and 4 to make correction of the name of petitioner No. 2 in the relevant records/birth register from Pooja to Sukhpal Kaur as mother of her child Diya Dhaliwal born on 22.09.2004 and issue fresh birth certificate of Diya Dhaliwal with her mother's name as Sukhpal Kaur. 2. Separate replies have been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4. 2. Separate replies have been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, it is submitted that the original application was returned to the Registrar, Birth and Death to attach the child's school certificate after correction of the mother's name in the school certificate but neither any representation nor any application has been submitted till today. 3. In the reply filed by respondent No. 4, it is averred that no document has been placed on record by the petitioners to prove that Sukhpal Kaur and Pooja are one and the same person. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short "the Act"), provides for correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. It is further submitted that Section 30(2)(l) of the Act gives powers to the State Government, with the approval of the Central Government, to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, providing for the correction of errors and the cancellation of entries in the register of births and deaths. It is further submitted that in view of the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Act, the Government of Punjab has issued the notification dated 21.01.2004 and notified the Punjab Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2004 (for short "the Rules"), in which Rule 11 deals with the correction and cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. It is further submitted that Rule 11(4) of the Rules provides that if any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the said entry may be corrected in terms of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case, recommended by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. The explanation to Rule 11(4) provides the definition of credible person which includes Panch, Sarpach, Municipal Councillor, Member of Legislative Assembly, Member of Parliament and a Gazetted Officer. 5. The explanation to Rule 11(4) provides the definition of credible person which includes Panch, Sarpach, Municipal Councillor, Member of Legislative Assembly, Member of Parliament and a Gazetted Officer. 5. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already submitted the declaration in terms of Rule 11(4) of the Rules, which is supported/recommended by two credible persons, as provided in the explanation. 6. Counsel for the respondents have stuck to their stand taken in their respective replies and have submitted that they have no objection if the petitioners prove that Sukhpal Kaur and Pooja are one and the same person. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance. 8. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the entry in the birth and death register can be corrected if there is a substantive error in the said entry. 9. The object and reasons for enactment of the Act was to acquire adequate and accurate country-wide data for registration of births and deaths in the country for the purposes of national planning, organising public health, medical activities and developing family planning programmes. The Act is applicable to the entire country in which Chapter III deals with registration of births and deaths. Section 8 of the Act provides that it is the duty of the persons to give, either orally or in writing, within such time as may be prescribed, information to the Registrar of the several particulars required to be entered in the forms prescribed by the State Government. However, if a mistake occurs in the information supplied, it can be corrected in terms of Section 15 of the Act, which reads as under:- "15. However, if a mistake occurs in the information supplied, it can be corrected in terms of Section 15 of the Act, which reads as under:- "15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths.- If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alternation of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation." 10. In order to make the Act workable, Rule 30 provides powers to the State Government, with the approval of the Central Government and by notification in the Official Gazette, to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, in which Section 30(2)(l) deals with the correction of errors and the cancellation of entries in the register of births and deaths. In pursuance to the powers contained in Rule 30(2)(l) of the Act, the State of Punjab notified the Rules. Rule 11 of the Rules deals with the correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths, which is reproduced as under:- "11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. - (1) If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error by correcting or cancelling the entry as provided in section 15, and shall send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the District Registrar and the State Government or the officer specified by it in this behalf. (2) In the case referred to in sub-rule (1), if the register is not in his possession, the Registrar shall make a report to the District Registrar or the officer specified by the State Government in this behalf, and call for the relevant register and after enquiring into the matter, if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, make the necessary correction. (3) Any such correction as mentioned in sub-rule (2), shall be countersigned by the District Registrar or the officer specified by the State Government in this behalf, when the register is received from the Registrar. (4) If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in accordance with the provisions of section 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-rule, the term 'Credible Person' stands for Panch, Sarpanch, Municipal Commissioner, Member of Legislative Assembly, Member of Parliament and a Gazetted Officer. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (4), the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein, giving necessary details to the District Registrar or the officer specified by the State Government in this behalf. (6) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the Officer Authorised by the Chief Registrar by a General or special order in this behalf under section 25, and on hearing from him, take necessary action in the matter. (7) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, an intimation thereof shall be sent on the residential address of the person, who had given information under section 8 or section 9, as the case may be." 11. Rule 11(4) of the Rules is specifically in regard to the entry to be corrected in the register of the births and deaths if it is erroneous in substance upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts. Rule 11(4) of the Rules is specifically in regard to the entry to be corrected in the register of the births and deaths if it is erroneous in substance upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts. The application made by that person has to be approved/recommended by two credible persons who have the knowledge of the facts of the case. Explanation to Rule 11(4) has given the definition of credible persons which includes Panch, Sarpanch, Municipal Councillor, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Member of Parliament and a Gazetted Officer. 12. The dispute in this case is only to the extent that in the birth certificate of Diya Dhaliwal, the name of her mother has been recorded as Pooja, which is alleged to have been wrongly recorded at the instance of petitioner No. 2 by her brother at the time when she was in the hospital and the said entry was continuing because, according to petitioner No. 2, she is also called by her nick name Pooja. The problem arose when the petitioners sought correction in the school records in the mother's name of their child Diya Dhaliwal from Pooja to Sukhpal Kaur and the school authorities had returned the application on the ground that they should first get the birth certificate corrected and only then the entry in the school records would be corrected. 13. Rule 11(4) of the Rules empowers the person, who has committed the error in the registration of birth and death, to get the said error corrected provided the said person make a declaration along with recommendation by at least two credible persons who would say that they know the facts of the case. Since the petitioners have already submitted their declaration and also the recommendation of two credible persons, namely, Ruldu Ram Kushdil Councillor and Balbir Singh Panch who had specifically stated that there is no person known as Pooja in their village except for Sukhpal Kaur-petitioner No. 2, therefore, the respondents should not have returned the application of the petitioners especially when the Rules provide for this type of correction on the basis of evidence in the form of declaration and the recommendation by two credible persons. 14. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioners has merit and as such, the same is hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to make necessary correction in the birth register in regard to the name of petitioner No. 2 as Sukhpal Kaur, mother of Diya Dhaliwal instead of Pooja and issue fresh birth certificate, showing Sukhpal Kaur as mother of Diya Dhaliwal, and further, on submission of the fresh birth certificate, the school authorities are also directed to make necessary corrections in the school records. 15. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.