Mathumitha Ramesh Vs The Chief Health Officer (Madras High Court)
In the present case, the hospital in which the petitioner had given birth to a child had certified that the petitioner herein had delivered an alive girl on 23.04.2017 at 10.47 a.m. at Cethar Hospital, Trichy. The petitioner herein had also filed an affidavit before the authorities that the child was born from her womb. In the affidavit filed before this Court, the petitioner had clearly stated that she got pregnant through “intrauterine insemination” through which, she delivered the girl baby namely, Tavishi Perara on 23.04.2017 at Cethar Hospital, Trichy.
In the light of these statements made in the affidavit and also taking cognizance of the fact that the identity of the semen donor cannot be revealed, it follows that the authorities cannot insist for disclosure of the name of the father of the child. Accordingly, an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 24.04.2018 directing the first respondent to remove the name of Mr. Manish Madanpal Meena in the birth certificate of the petitioner’s daughter namely, Tavishi Perara born on 23.04.2017 and the matter is directed to be listed today for reporting compliance.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who had been separated by an order of divorce on mutual consent, has given birth to a child namely, Tavishi Perara on 23.04.2017. The birth of the child was through an intrauterine fertility treatment. The insemination was done with the help of a semen donor.
2. After birth of the child, the fourth respondent herein had issued a birth certificate for Tavishi Perara, in which the petitioner’s name has been shown as mother of the child and Mr.Manish Madanpal Meena has been shown as father of the child. Since the said Mr.Manish Madanpal Meena is neither the father of Tavishi Perara nor the husband of the petitioner herein but only happened to extend some help to the petitioner in the hospital, the petitioner had sought for rectification of birth certificate by having the name of Mr.Manish Madanpal Meena removed. However, by an order dated 04.09.2017, passed by the first respondent, the petitioner’s request was rejected on the ground that the mistakes and errors in the names of the father alone can be rectified and removal of the name from the birth certificate is not contemplated under the relevant law. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein had filed W.P.(MD)No.20839 of 2017 and this Court by an order dated 13.11.2017, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer with a representation seeking for required rectification. When the petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer with the representation, the same was rejected on 08.01.2017 on the ground that the Registrar is the competent authority for rectification of the birth certificate. It is in this background, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Ms. Shabnam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 r/w Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, it is the Registrar, who is the competent authority to carry out correction of errors in the birth certificate. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the mistake committed by the authorities, they have been made to run from pillar to post before various authorities for no fault of theirs. The learned counsel by relying upon the affidavits filed by Mr.Manish Madanpal Meena and the husband of the petitioner namely, Mr.Charan Raj submitted that both of them have affirmed that they are not the father of the child, since the petitioner was impregnated through intrauterine insemination with the help of a semen donor and the name of the father of the child required to be left blank. In support of her contention, the learned counsel had relied upon the affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that the pregnancy was through intrauterine fertility procedure.
4.The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 submitted that they are not the competent authority for carrying out the rectification in the birth certificates and that the Director of Birth and Death is the competent authority to carry out the rectification.
5. Mr. AR. Ram, learned counsel, appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that the fifth respondent is neither the father of the child nor is he interested in the life of the petitioner herein, since he has already been separated through divorce proceedings.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective counsel.
7. Insofar as the authority, who is competent to carry out the rectifications of the errors in the birth certificates, is concerned, it would be relevant to have a glance at the following provisions under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000:-
“Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths:-
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 there-to the date of the correction or cancellation.”
“11. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths under section 15:-
(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 canceling the entry) as provided in section 15 and shall in the case of local authorities specified in column (1) of the Table below send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the officer specified in column (2) thereof.
TABLE
