It is most heartening to note that in a very pertinent, pragmatic, powerful and progressive judgment titled XXX v. Registrar of Births and Dead Pathanamthitta Municipality and Ors. in WP(C) No. 4262 of 2022 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 373 that was delivered as recently as on July 19, 2022 while allowing a writ petition, the Kerala High Court held in no uncertain terms that a person has the right to not specify the name of their father in identity documents. The Court minced no words to state upfront that, “A child of an unwed mother is also a citizen of our country, and nobody can infringe any of his/her fundamental rights, which are guaranteed in our Constitution. He/she is a son/daughter of not only the unwed mother but this great country “India”.” The Court passed this superb order while recognizing and conceding the agonies faced by children of unwed mothers and rape victims. While robustly referring to the Mahabharat character Karna, the Court observed in its judgment that, “We want a society with no such characters like “Karna”, who curses his life because of the insult he faced for not knowing the whereabouts of his parents.”
To start with, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice PV Kunhikrishnan sets the pitch in motion right from the beginning by putting forth in para 1 that, “This is a sad story of a mother and her son. The 2nd petitioner is an unfortunate mother who conceived the 1st petitioner while she was a minor under a mysterious circumstance by an unidentified person. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners to expunge and remove the father’s name from the birth register maintained by the office of the 1st respondent with respect to the 1st petitioner and issue a certificate showing the mother’s name only as a single parent. A child of an unwed mother is also a citizen of our country, and nobody can infringe any of his/her fundamental rights, which are guaranteed in our Constitution. He/she is a son/daughter of not only the unwed mother but this great country “India.” We need to live in a country where there will be no example to cite for the word “bastard” and let that word continue in the dictionary pages without getting an opportunity to give examples to the young student generation of English. The children of unwed mothers and the children of raped victim can also live in this country with the fundamental rights of privacy, liberty, and dignity. None can intrude into their personal life, and if it happens, the constitutional Court of this country will protect their fundamental rights. The Apex Court has held that a woman’s reproductive choice is a fundamental right and compassed the same under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Suchita Srivastava and Another v. Chandigarh Administration [AIR 2010 SC 235], the Apex Court held thus:
“There is no doubt that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to recognize that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity should be respected.””
While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “Referring to the above judgment, the Apex Court in Devika Biswas v. Union of India and Others [AIR 2016 SC 4405] observed thus: “This Court recognized reproductive rights as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration. The freedom to exercise these reproductive rights would include the right to make a choice regarding sterilization on the basis of informed consent and free from any form of coercion”.”
While citing yet another most relevant case law, the Bench then mentions in para 3 that, “The Apex Court in K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India [2017 (4) KLT 1], observed like this:
“To live is to live with dignity. The draftsmen of the Constitution defined their vision of the society in which constitutional values would be attained by emphasising, among other freedoms, liberty and dignity. So fundamental is dignity that it permeates the core of the rights guaranteed to the individual by Part III. Dignity is the core which unites the fundamental rights because the fundamental rights seek to achieve for each individual the dignity of existence. Privacy with its attendant values assures dignity to the individual and it is only when life can been enjoyed with dignity can liberty be of true substance. Privacy ensures the fulfilment of dignity and is a core value which the protection of life and liberty is intended to achieve.””
Needless to say, the Bench then observes in para 4 that, “In the light of the above decisions, the facts of the present case are to be considered. To keep the anonymity of the son and the mother, who are the petitioners in this writ petition, the 1st petitioner son is referred to as “X” and the 2nd petitioner mother is referred to as “Y”. The name of the father of the 1st petitioner is given differently in three different documents, and therefore, the father’s name is referred as “Z”, “Z1” and “Z2”.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 5 that, “The 1st petitioner was conceived by the 2nd petitioner, the mother of the 1st petitioner, while she was a minor under mysterious circumstance by an unidentified person. Therefore the father’s name of the 1st petitioner happened to be recorded differently in different documents. The name of the mother of the 1st petitioner is correctly recorded in all identification and education certificates. In the birth registration certificate of the 1st petitioner before the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Pathanamthitta, the father’s name is recorded as “Z”. Ext.P1 is the copy of the birth certificate. In the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC), the name of the father of the 1st petitioner is recorded as “Z1”. Ext.P1(2) is the copy of the certificate(SSLC). In the Higher Secondary Examination (HSE) Certificate, the parents’ names are not recorded on the face. Ext.P1(3) is the copy of the HSE certificate. In the Election ID, mother’s name is recorded on the face. Ext.P1(4) is the copy of the Election ID card of the 1st petitioner. In AADHAR card, name of the father of the 1st petitioner is recorded as “Z2”. Ext.P1(5) is the copy of the AADHAR card. In the driving licence, the name of the mother alone is recorded on the face. Ext.P1(6) is the copy of the driving licence of the 1st petitioner. In the card showing the Permanent Account Number (PAN), name of the mother, “Y” alone is recorded on the face. In the Passport, the name of the father is recorded as “Z3”. The same is produced as Ext.P1(8).”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 6 that, “Since the paternal name of the 1st petitioner appears differently in different documents and the name is uncertain, the petitioner did not want the father’s name to be recorded in any of the documents and certificates. Hence the 1 st petitioner sent a request to the 1st respondent as well as respondents 2 to 8 requesting to delete the name of the father of the petitioner appears in all identity certificates, records, and databases concerning the 1st petitioner and after deleting the name of the father, to issue new corrected identity cards and certificates. Ext.P1 is the request submitted by the petitioner.”
Truth be told, the Bench then specifies in para 7 that, “The 1st respondent is the statutory authority under the Central Act, namely The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short, the Act 1969). The 1st respondent is chronologically the first authority to record the name of the parents. Section 15 of the Act 1969 gives power to the 1st respondent to correct the entries. The State of Kerala framed Rules as per the Act, which enables such correction and deletion of errors that are wrongly or improperly made. Moreover, the Government of India, as per Ext.P3 letter, circulated to all Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths in the country directing that the name of the single parent will be written in the birth record, and the name of the other parent must be left blank if such requests are made. This letter was issued in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2015 (10) SCC 1]. In the light of the law declared by the Apex Court and clarified by the direction in Ext.P3, it is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is bound to expunge the name of the father from the Birth Register and based on which the other respondents are also bound to correct the records in tune with the same. Hence this writ petition is filed with following prayers:
A. Direct Respondent No.1 to expunge and remove the name of father from the Birth Register maintained at his office regarding petitioner no.1 and issue certificate showing the name of the mother only as a single parent.
B. Direct respondents 2 to 8 effect consequential expunge of name of the father from their official records and databases,
C. Grant such other reliefs which may be prayed for hereafter and this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances. (SIC).”
It deserves mentioning that the Bench then observes in para 10 that, “Section 15 of the Act 1969 deals with the correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. It will be beneficial to extract Section 15 of the Act 1969:
“15. 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 alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.””
Quite usefully, the Bench then illustrates in para 11 stating that, “As per Section 15, 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 alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation. The Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 (for short, the Rules 1999) was framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Act 1969. Rule 11 of the Rules 1999 is relevant, and the same is extracted hereunder:
“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 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 State Government or the officer specified by it in this behalf.
(2) 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 the manner prescribed under 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the State Government or the officer specified in this behalf.
(3) 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 general or special order in this behalf under section 25 and on hearing from him take necessary action in the matter.
(4) In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under section 8 or section 9.””
Simply put, the Bench then notes in para 12 that, “As per Rule 11(2), 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 the manner prescribed under 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. It is also stated that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and subrule (2) of Rule 11, the Registrar shall make report of any correction of the kind referred to therein, giving necessary details to the State Government or the officer specified in this behalf. Therefore, on a combined reading of Section 15 of the Act 1969 and Rule 11 of the Rules 1999, it is clear that a correction of an entry in the Register of Births and Deaths is possible in certain circumstances mentioned in it.”
Most significantly, the Bench then minces no words to mandate unambiguously in para 18 that, “From the above discussions, it is clear that it is the right of a person to include his mother’s name alone in the birth certificate, identity certificates and other documents. As I observed earlier, there are children of rape victims and children of unwed mothers in this country. Their right of privacy, dignity and liberty cannot be curtailed by any authority. The mental agony of such person is to be imagined by every citizen of this country while intruding into their privacy. In some cases it will be a deliberate act and in other cases it may be by mistake. But the State should protect citizens of all such kind as equal to other citizens without disclosing their identity and privacy. Otherwise, they will face unimaginable mental agonies.”
Briefly stated, the Bench then observes in para 19 that, “The mental agony faced by a person, who does not know their parents is picturised by the character of “Karna” in the ancient epic “Maharabharatha”. “Karna” was not aware of his parents till his mother “Kunthi Devi” told him about the truth. The mental agony and insult faced by “Karna” is picturised way back in the ancient time itself by “Vedavyasa” in “Mahabharatha”. In tune with the above story, Mali Madhavan Nair wrote a story (Aattakadha) in “Kathakali” which is popularly known as “Karnashapadham”. The mental agony and insult faced by “Karna” is picturised in a “Padham” (verse) of “Karnashapadham”.”
Quite graciously, the Bench then concedes in para 20 mentioning that, “It is difficult to translate the above “padham” to English with the same artistic beauty. However, since the language of this judgment is in English, the meaning in plain words is to be stated. The meaning is like this:
“Why doubts and indecision are going
through my heart!
Even though I am the King of Angarajya
I do not know where I was born!
Does anybody know where I was born and what is the sect?
Oh my God! Who are my parents?
Will I be able to see them, or is it my fate
to die before meeting them!”
When the above “Padham” was sung by the legends like Late Kalamandalam Hyderali and Kalamandalam Gopi (who was honoured by Padmasree by the country) on stage to act the scene, even a person who is not a lover of “Kathakali” would find tears in their eyes. We want a society with no such characters like “Karna”, who curses his life because of the insult he faced for not knowing the whereabouts of his parents. We want the real brave “Karnas” who was the real hero and fighter in “Mahabharatha”. Our Constitution and the constitutional Courts will protect all of them and the new age “Karnas” can live like any other citizen with dignity and pride.”
Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 21 that, “In the light of the above discussions, the prayers in this writ petition are to be allowed. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to expunge and remove the name of the father from the Birth Register maintained at his office regarding the 1st petitioner and issue certificate showing the name of mother only as a single parent, if such a request is made by the petitioners. The 1st respondent will do the needful as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of such request and issue the necessary certificate to that effect during the above said period itself.
2. If the petitioners produce the corrected certificate issued by the 1st respondent, respondents 2 to 8 will effect consequential expunge of the name of the father from their official records and databases.
3. The Registry will not mention the names of the petitioners in the cause title of the judgment while uploading to the official site of this court. The registry will give sufficient number of certified copies of the judgment along with the details of the petitioners in a separate sealed cover if a copy application is filed for that purpose by the petitioners for production before the respondents.”
No doubt, this most commendable, cogent and convincing judgment deserves to be applauded in totality in all such similar cases! The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr PV Kunhikrishnan has taken great pains to meticulously dwell on all significant points and have elaborated exhaustively on the irrefutable fact that every person has right to specify only mother’s name in identity documents and none should suffer insult as suffered by legendary “Karna” now! Absolutely right!
