The Karnataka High Court, after noting that a mistake by the parents cannot put the child at a disadvantage, directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), to issue a birth certificate incorporating the name of a student from Kerala after a request for incorporating her name was rejected on the grounds that her parents had failed to get it incorporated in the certificate within the specified time period, as per a report by The New Indian Express.
The order was passed by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while allowing the petition filed by Fathima Richelle Mather, a 23-year-old, from Kerala questioning the endorsement dated July 28, 2023, issued by the BBMP that rejected her request for incorporating her name in the birth certificate.
The petitioner, Mather, is a native of Kerala, who is pursuing her Master's in Management programme at IE University, Madrid, Spain. The girl was born in the year 2000 at a hospital in Bengaluru.
The error in the birth certificate was that the name of the father and mother of the petitioner was incorporated but the petitioner's name was not mentioned.
What are the existing rules?
The need to incorporate her name in the birth certificate arose after she finished her education in Cochin and later, when a requirement had arisen for her to place her birth certificate for employment, she made an application to the BBMP to incorporate her name in the birth certificate but it was rejected in March 2023 by way of an endorsement.
The rejection was in accordance with the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which states that 15 years had been provided from 1999, the year in which the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, came into force, for entering the name of the person in the birth certificate, if not already entered into.
Since 15 years have already lapsed and had expired in the year 2015 and was again extended till 2020, for another five years, had expired too. Hence there is no provision to incorporate the name, the BBMP said.
Referring to Rule 10(1) the court said that instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs have also categorically indicated that it is the responsibility of the corporation to make it known the requirement of Rule 10 to everyone and give wide publicity but the corporation has not complied with making known to the public.
