[CR]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4262 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

1 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2 Y
BEING VICTIM ANONYMITY SUBMITTED IN THE SEALED
COVER, PIN - 682034
BY ADVS.
ATUL SOHAN
SREEJA SOHAN K.
K.V.SOHAN
VINAI JOHN
R.REJI (ATTINGAL)

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS

PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY
CENTRAL JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA 689645, PIN – 689645

2 GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
ROOM NO. 302,
3RD FLOOR, ANNEX II,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

3 THE BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATIONS,

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
THE DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

4 THE UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA

(UIDAI)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOI)
BANGLA SAHIB ROAD, BEHIND KALI MANDIR,
GOLE MARKET,NEW DELHI - 110001

5 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

REP. BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, KERALA
C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD,
COCHIN,
KERALA 682 018

6 THE PASSPORT OFFICER,

SNSM BUILDING, 3,4TH FLOOR, KAITHAMUKKU PETTA RD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA 695024

7 ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA,

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110001.

8 STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

REP. BY CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
ELECTION DEPARTMENT
KERALA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033.

BY ADVS.
THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS PATHANAMTHITTA
MUNICIPALITY(Party-In-Person)
MANU S., ASG OF INDIA
JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA
SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA
P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
R1 BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SUNIL

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

[C.R]

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.4262 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2022

JUDGMENT

This is a sad story of a mother and her son. The 2 nd

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

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

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

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

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."

2. 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”.

3. 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
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

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.”

4. 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 2 nd

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".

5. The 1st petitioner was conceived by the 2 nd

petitioner, the mother of the 1st petitioner, while she was a

minor under mysterious circumstance by an unidentified

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st 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 1 st

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

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).

6. 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

1st petitioner sent a request to the 1 st 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 1 st 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.

7. 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 1 st respondent is

chronologically the first authority to record the name of the

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

parents. Section 15 of the Act 1969 gives power to the 1 st

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 1 st

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

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

10

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,

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)

8. Heard Adv.K.V.Sohan, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Adv.V.K.Sunil, who appeared for the 1 st

respondent. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India

Adv.S.Manu appeared for the 6th respondent. Adv.Jose Joseph

appeared for the 5th respondent and Adv. Deepu Lal Mohan

appeared for the 7th respondent. I also heard the learned

Senior Government Pleader Adv.Deepa Narayanan.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contentions raised in the writ petition. The learned counsel

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

11

submitted that the 1st petitioner is an unfortunate youngster

who had to go behind the respondents to make corrections in

his identity certificates with the name of a single parent even

though the same is declared by the Apex Court in ABC’s case

(supra) and the Government of India has clarified the same in

Ext.P3. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of

this Court in XXXX v. State of Kerala and Others [2021

(4) KHC 641]. The learned counsels appearing for the

respondents submitted that the respondents would act in

accordance with the directions issued by this Court.

10. 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
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

12

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.”

11. 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 -
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

13

(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
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

14

sent to the permanent address of the person who has

given information under section 8 or section 9. ”

12. 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 sub-

rule (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.

13. The Apex Court in ABC’s case (supra) also

considered a similar issue. The apex court was considering

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

15

the legal conundrum as to whether it is imperative for an

unwed mother to specifically notify that the putative father of

the child to whom she has given birth to in her petition for

appointment as the guardian of her child. The Apex Court

discussed the matter in paragraph 19 of the above judgment

and the same is extracted hereunder:

“We are greatly perturbed by the fact that the Appellant

has not obtained a Birth Certificate for her son who is
nearly five years old. This is bound to create problems for
the child in the future. In this regard, the Appellant has
not sought any relief either before us or before any of the
Courts below. It is a misplaced assumption in the law as
it is presently perceived that the issuance of a Birth
Certificate would be a logical corollary to the Appellant
succeeding in her guardianship petition. It may be
recalled that owing to curial fiat, it is no longer necessary
to state the name of the father in applications seeking
admission of children to school, as well as for obtaining a
passport for a minor child. However, in both these cases,
it may still remain necessary to furnish a Birth Certificate.
The law is dynamic and is expected to diligently keep
pace with time and the legal conundrums and enigmas it
presents. There is no gainsaying that the identity of the
mother is never in doubt. Accordingly, we direct that if a
single parent/unwed mother applies for the issuance of a
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

16

Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the

Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an
affidavit to this effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth
Certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the
contrary. Trite though it is, yet we emphasize that it is the
responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen suffers
any inconvenience or disadvantage merely because the
parents fail or neglect to register the birth. Nay, it is the
duty of the State to take requisite steps for recording
every birth of every citizen. To remove any possible
doubt, the direction pertaining to issuance of the Birth
Certificate is intendedly not restricted to the
circumstances or the parties before us.”

14. Similarly, in XXXX’s case (supra), this Court was

considering the situation of a single parent/ unwed mother

getting conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).

In that case, this Court directed the Government to bring out

a separate form, which does not contain a field requiring the

name and other details of the father.

15. In Shalu Nigam and Another v. Regional

Passport Officer and Another [2016 KHC 3587] the Delhi

High Court considered the ABC’s Case (Supra) and observed

as follows:
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

17

“17. The Supreme Court in ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

AIR 2015 SC 2569 has held that it is not imperative for
an unwed mother to specifically notify the putative father
of the child whom she has given birth to of her petition
for appointment as the guardian of her child. The
Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as under:-

"9. ..............In situations such this, where the father

has not exhibited any concern for his offspring, giving
him legal recognition would be an exercise in futility. In
today's society, where women are increasingly choosing
to raise their children alone, we see no purpose in
imposing an unwilling and unconcerned father on an
otherwise viable family nucleus. It seems to us that a
man who has chosen to forsake his duties and
responsibilities is not a necessary constituent for the well
being of the child...........

xxx xxx xxx

11. ..........Any responsible man would keep track of his

offspring and be concerned for the welfare of the child he
has brought into the world; this does not appear to be so
in the present case, on a perusal of the pleading as they
presently portray.....…

12. We recognize that the father's right to be involved in

his child's life may be taken away if Section 11 is read in
such a manner that he is not given notice, but given his
lack of involvement in the child's life, we find no reason
to prioritize his rights over those of the mother or her
child.....…
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

18

13. ..........the welfare of the child would be undermined

if the Appellant is not compelled to disclose the identity
of the father, or that Court notice is mandatory in the
child's interest. On the contrary, we find that this may
well protect the child from social stigma and needless
controversy.

xxx xxx xxx

15. .........The views of an uninvolved father are not

essential, in our opinion, to protect the interests of a
child born out of wedlock and being raised solely by
his/her mother....... The sole factor for consideration
before us, therefore, is the welfare of the minor child,
regardless of the rights of the parents.......…

xxx xxx xxx

18. .........The provisions of the Convention which we

have extracted indeed reiterate the settled legal position
that the welfare of the child is of paramount
consideration vis a vis the perceived rights of parents not
only so far as the law in India is concerned, but
preponderantly in all jurisdictions across the globe.....…"
(emphasis supplied)

18. The Supreme Court in the case of ABC (supra) also

quoted with approval the Convention on the Rights of the
Child in particular its Article 12 which reads as under:-

"1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable

of forming his or her own views the right to express
those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the
views of the child being given due weight in accordance
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

19

with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be

provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and
administrative proceedings affecting the child, either
directly, or through a representative or an appropriate
body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of
national law."

16. In Ms. Vindhya Saxena & Another v. East Delhi

Municipal Corporation (Order dated 24.03.2022 in LPA

No.308 of 2021), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court

observed that the appellant therein has not brought to the

notice of the Court any law suggesting that only the name of

the father could be reflected in the AADHAR Card of the minor

child. In Mathumitha Ramesh v. Chief Health Officer

Tiruchirapalli and Others [2018 KHC 4410], the Madras

High Court observed as follows:

“15. 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
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

20

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.

16.Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the

learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that
pursuant to the directions of this Court dated
24.04.2018, the birth certificate of the petitioner's
daughter namely, Tavishi Perara born on 23.04.2017 at
Cethat Hospital, Trichy has been rectified in their register
and a certificate has also been issued in which the name
of the father of the child has been left blank and the
petitioner's name has been shown as the mother of
Tavishi Perara.”

17. Moreover, in Ext.P3, which is the letter issued by

the Government of India, the Ministry of Home Affairs

clarified the position in the light of the decision of the Apex

Court in ABC’s Case (Supra). It will be better to extract the

contents in Ext.P3 here:

To,

All Chief Registrar of births and deaths

Dated: 21-07-2015

Sub. Honble Supreme Court Judgment regarding

registration of birth of a child in case of single parent /
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

21

unwed mother/RE HIGH OF KER

Sir,

Your attention is invited to the recent Judgment of Honb'le

Supreme Court of India delivered on 6th July, 2015 in
respect of ABC (Appellant) versus the State (NCT of Delhi),
Civil Appeal No. 2015 arising out of SLP (civil) No 28367of
2011. This appeal is directed against the High Court, Delhi
Judgment dated 08-08-2011. The said appeal was filed
under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 2.
The Honble Supreme Court in its Judgment stated that "If
a single parent/unwed mother apply for the issuance of a
Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the
Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an
affidavit to this effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth
Certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the
contrary" The Court also directed that no citizen suffers
any inconvenience or disadvantage merely because the
parents fail or neglect to register the birth.

3. Taking into consideration the above direction, you are

requested to issue the necessary direction to the
concerned registration functionaries for strict compliance of
above direction and ensure that no one is denied birth
registration of a child of a single parent / unwed mother. In
such cases, the name of single parent will be written in the
birth record and name of other parent will be left blank.
For registration of such cases, the requisite documents as
suggested by the Honble court should be retained as
permanent record. This office may be apprised about the
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

22

action taken in this regard.”

18. 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.

19. 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

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

23

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". The same is extracted

hereunder:

"എന്തിഹ മൻമാനസേ സന്ദേഹം വളരുന്നു

അംഗേശനാമീ ഞാൻ എങ്ങു പിറന്നവനോ

ഇങ്ങാരറിവൂ ഞാനാര്

എങ്ങെന്റെ വംശമെന്നോ

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

ഹാ! ദൈവമേ എൻ ജന്മ ദാതാക്കളാരോ

കാണുമോ ഞാനവരെ

കാണുകയില്ലായെന്നോ

കാണാതെ മരിക്കുവാനാണോ ശിരോലിഖിതം"

20. 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

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

24

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?

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

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

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

25

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.

21. 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 1 st 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

W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

26

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.

Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV/das JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.4262/2022

27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4262/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Expt.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST TO SENT BY P1 TO

ALL RESPONDENTS,EXPT.P1 ALONG WITH
EXPTP1(1) TO EXPTP1(8) SUBMITTED IN
SEALED-COVER-1-EF-HCK-2022-002187
Expt.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE
JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER
SECONDARY EDUCATION(R3) ,EXPT.P2
SUBMITTED IN SEALED-COVER-1-EF-HCK-2022-
002187
Expt.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 1/12/20 14—
VS(CRS) DATED 21-07-2015 ISSUED BY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS

Respondents Exts: Nil

/True copy/

P.A.to Judge