Sanchayita Lahkar

The Kerala High Court has set aside the rejection of a birth registration application, directing the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat to reconsider the request and issue a birth certificate based on affidavits provided by the petitioner. The case was heard by Single Bench of  Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., who observed that "merely because the Superintendent CHC could not collect any evidence regarding the birth, that by itself cannot be a reason for the Panchayat to reject the application."

The court directed the Panchayat to accept and verify the affidavits produced by the petitioner and register the birth accordingly within one month from the date of receipt of the original affidavits.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Journalists Over News Reports on Art Auction

The petition was filed by a minor child, represented by her father, along with both parents, seeking the issuance of a birth certificate. The petitioners stated that the child was born at the residence of a relative in Ward No. 7 of the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat, before the mother could be taken to a hospital for medical assistance. The second petitioner, the father of the child, submitted a request to the Secretary of the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat for registration of birth and issuance of a birth certificate.

The application was rejected by the Panchayat Secretary on the basis of an inquiry conducted by the Superintendent of CHC Mayyanad. The rejection order, issued as Ext.P3, stated that there was no evidence to confirm that the child was born in House No. 169 in Ward No. 7. The inquiry report also noted that the petitioners were not residents of the said address. The petitioners challenged this decision before the High Court, seeking the quashing of the rejection order and a directive to register the birth of the child under the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999.

The respondents, including the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat and its Secretary, filed a counter-affidavit, reiterating the contents of the rejection order. The report from the CHC Superintendent was also submitted, confirming that no evidence of birth could be collected from the location in question. The Kottarakkara Municipality, which was also made a respondent in the case, filed a statement stating that it had no records regarding the birth of the child.

The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, particularly Section 8(1), which prescribes who must report a birth that occurs in a household. The court recorded 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 lives in the house, the head of the household." The law also provides that if the head of the household is absent, a close relative or any adult present at the time of birth may provide the information.

The court observed that although the second petitioner, the father of the child, was not the head of the household where the birth occurred, this was not cited as a reason for rejecting the application. Instead, the rejection was based on the report of the CHC Superintendent, which found no documentary proof of birth at the said residence.

The judgment stated: "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." The court noted that the absence of medical records was understandable under such circumstances and that the authorities should have considered other forms of proof before rejecting the application.

The court recorded that "the proper course ought to have been adopted by the Panchayat 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 petitioners had produced affidavits from individuals, including residents of the house where the birth allegedly occurred. These affidavits were submitted as Exts. P5 and P6, but the Panchayat did not consider them before rejecting the request. The judgment noted that "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."

The court further observed: "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." It stated that the rejection of the birth registration application, without conducting a proper inquiry into alternative sources of verification, warranted interference.

The High Court quashed Ext.P3 and directed the Secretary of Mayyanad Grama Panchayat to reconsider the petitioner’s application in light of the affidavits submitted. The judgment stated: "In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the request made by the 2nd petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P2 and to grant the same, by taking note of the affidavits which are produced as Ext.P5 and P6."

Also Read: ‘Liquidator Cannot Retain Unused Premises’ – Bombay High Court Orders Return of Tenanted Property to Landlords in Liquidation Case

The petitioner was instructed to submit the original affidavits before the Panchayat Secretary, who was then directed to register the birth and issue the certificate within one month from the date of receipt of the documents. The judgment stated: "The petitioner shall produce the affidavits of the said persons in original before the 2nd respondent and thereupon the 2nd respondent shall register the birth of the 1st petitioner and issue a certificate to that effect. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the affidavits."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: S.K. Adhithyan, Althaf Nabeel, Advocates

For the Respondents: Sasith M.R. (Standing Counsel for Mayyanad Grama Panchayat), M.K. Chandramohan Das (Standing Counsel for Kottarakkara Municipality)

Case Title: Ummu Kulsoom & Ors. v. Mayyanad Grama Panchayat & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:14093
Case Number: WP(C) No. 22274 of 2023
Bench: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.

[Read/Download order]