Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision 3rd August, 2021
PRANJALI KUREEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.P. Jain, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Advocate for R-1/CBSE.
Mr. S Rajappa, Standing Counsel with Mr. R.
Gowrishankar, Advocate for R- 2.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for SDMC.
JUDGMENT
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent No.1-Central Board of Secondary Education [“CBSE”] to correct her date of birth in her Class X and Class XII certificates.
2. The petitioner states that her date of birth was wrongly stated at the time of her admission into school as 01.04.1998, rather than her 2021:DHC:2296 correct date of birth, which is 10.04.1998. The aforesaid error continued to be reflected in her school records and was also incorporated in her Class X and Class XII certificates issued by the CBSE in 2013 and 2015 respectively.
3. The petitioner has since graduated with a B.A. (Hons) in History degree from Lady Shri Ram College for Women, University of Delhi, and has completed her Master of Arts in Social Work (Dalit and Tribal Studies and Action) from Tata Institute of Social Science, Mumbai. She has now received a conditional offer of admission for an M.Phil. degree in Modern South Asian Studies from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, and has been selected for a Commonwealth Scholarship.
4. The difficulty which has occasioned the present petition is that the discrepancy between the date of birth in her school and CBSE records, as compared to the date of birth in her passport and other public documents, is coming in the way of her pursuing further studies overseas.
5. The petitioner avers in the writ petition that this discrepancy of approximately ten days has arisen at the time of her admission in school and continued due to the bona fide mistake of her parents, who did not realise the ramifications that it may later acquire.
6. In support of her contention regarding her correct date of birth, the petitioner has produced a copy of her passport and her PAN card which reflect her date of birth as 10.04.1998. The petitioner has also produced a computerised birth certificate issued by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation [“SDMC”], which indicates her date of birth as 10.04.1998 and that it was registered under Registration No. 395 on 17.04.1998.
7. The genesis of the confusion in the petitioner’s date of birth apparently lies in a handwritten birth certificate that was earlier issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [“GNCTD”]. A copy of the handwritten certificate has also been annexed to the writ petition. While it records the Registration No. as 395, and the date of registration as 17.04.1998, the date of birth mentioned in this certificate is 01.04.1998. In fact, even the name of the child is left blank in this handwritten certificate.
8. In view of this discrepancy, while issuing notice in the writ petition on 13.07.2021, this Court also directed that a copy of this petition be served upon Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Standing Counsel for the SDMC, who was requested to ascertain the factual position. With the consent of the parties, SDMC is impleaded as respondent No. 3 to the writ petition. Mr. Sabharwal, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on its behalf. Amended memo of parties be filed by tomorrow.
9. Mr. Sabharwal has forwarded to the Court Master, a copy of the original communication received from the Sub Registrar (B&D), South Zone, SDMC and a copy of the original register. The documents are taken on record.
10. The communication dated 26.07.2021 is reproduced below:- “It‟s submitted that on examination of old birth record of PRANJALI KUREEL D/O SUNITA W/O ASHOK. As per record child D.O.B is 10/04/1998 and date of registration is 395 dated 17.04.1998. Place of birth is CGHS Hospital. At the time of birth her address is 430/Sec-II sadiq Nagar N.D. Copy of Birth record is enclosed herewith.”
11. The aforesaid details, including the name of the petitioner, are also reflected in the photocopy of the register of the SDMC transmitted to this Court by the SDMC.
12. In these circumstances, the public records comprising of the birth certificate (supported by the aforesaid verification by the SDMC), the passport and the PAN card support the petitioner’s version regarding her date of birth. The circumstances which gave rise to the error in her date of birth in her academic records have also been explained.
13. Mr. S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjay Khanna, learned counsel for the CBSE, have drawn my attention to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (minor) through Guardian/father Hari Singh vs. C.B.S.E (Central Board of Secondary Education) & Ors.1, wherein the Supreme Court has considered the question of corrections and changes in the particulars in the CBSE’s records, and examined the validity of the applicable byelaws of the CBSE. The judgment requires detailed consideration for the proper adjudication of this petition.
14. As far as date of birth is concerned, the Supreme Court has observed that there is no question of change in the date of birth, which is only susceptible to correction, as a person’s date of birth is immutable. The Examination Byelaws of the CBSE, insofar as they 2021 SCC Online SC 415 [Judgment dated 03.06.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 3905/2011 and connected matters] relate to correction in the date of birth, have been upheld by the Supreme Court with the following observations:- “168. The conditions regarding "correction" in name or date of birth are not as stringent as conditions applicable to change thereof. For correction in name, the 2018 Byelaws provide for a limitation period of five years and permit such corrections that can be characterized as typographical, factual or spelling mistake in comparison with school records. Understandably, a correction would mean retention of the original record with slight modification to make it consistent with the school records. This requirement of modification could be born out of various reasons, namely typographical mistake at the time of publishing, spelling error or factual error i.e., an error of fact as it existed at the time when the certificate was published. Thus, correction in name is done to bring unanimity between the school records (as they existed at the time of sending information to the Board) and CBSE certificates. However, if school records are altered afterwards and Board is called upon to alter its certificates in light of the updated school records, the same cannot be termed as correction per se but would be in the nature of recording change. Therefore, substantially deviating from a "correction", the Byelaws provide for an option to "change" the name, which is subject to different conditions.
169. Similar provision is available for "correction" in date of birth, either on the basis of school records or on the basis of order of court. The word "change" is not used for date of birth as, unlike name, there can only be one date of birth and there can only be a correction to make it consistent with school record or order of Court. It cannot be changed to replace the former with a fresh date of one's choice. Be it noted, provisions relating to correction in date of birth and name are just and reasonable and do not impose any unreasonable restriction on permissibility of corrections. The restriction regarding limitation period shall be examined later, along with other provisions.”2
15. Mr. Khanna has drawn my attention to the Byelaws 69.[2] and 69.[3] of the CBSE Examination Byelaws dated 01.02.2018, which deal with corrections in date of birth. The provisions of Byelaws 69.[2] and 69.[3] are reproduced below:- “69.[2] Change in Date of Birth No change in the date of birth once recorded in the Board‟s records shall be made. 69.[3] (Correction in Date of Birth)
Applications regarding correction in date of birth of candidates will be considered provided the correction have been admitted by the Court of law. In cases of correction in date of birth in documents after the court orders caption will be mentioned on the document “CORRECTION ALLOWED IN DATE OF BIRTH FROM ________ TO ________ ON (DATED) _____________ AS PER COURT ORDER NO. __________ DATED ____________.”
16. The present case does not raise the question of inconsistency between the CBSE’s record and the school records, as those are admittedly consistent. The question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of the Court, consequent upon which the correction may be effected under Byelaw 69.3(B). The approach of the Court in such a situation, and the question as to whether the CBSE record can be corrected to make it consistent with the petitioner’s date of birth as recorded in other public documents, has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav[3] as follows:-
17. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has directed the CBSE to amend its byelaws, consistent with the principles laid down therein. The Court has expressly directed that pending and future applications be processed on the lines of the principles laid down, even during the pendency of the process of amendment.
18. From a reading of the applicable Byelaws of the CBSE and the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that this Court is required to consider the public documents produced by the petitioner in the context of the legal presumption operating in their favour. In the present case, the genuineness of the documents is not contested, and the documents placed on record by Mr. Sabharwal on behalf of the SDMC confirm that the requisite change is, in fact, consistent with the contemporaneous record. The Byelaws themselves do not impose any restrictions upon the CBSE as far as correction of the date of birth pursuant to an order of the Court is concerned.
19. In these circumstances, Mr. Khanna’s only submission is that the Court should impose a restriction as to the time within which such relief can be granted to a student. Significantly, the Byelaws do not impose a time limit for a correction to be made pursuant to a Court Emphasis supplied order, unlike the limitation period imposed for a correction sought in terms of the school record. As far as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the principle is that the Court would not grant relief if it has been approached with unreasonable delay and laches. This is a question which has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case, consistent with the general principles relating to the relief sought. The facts of the present case do not disclose any such delay as to disentitle the petitioner to the relief sought. The Court’s approach to the question of delay must take into account the totality of circumstances. It must be borne in mind in this context that erroneous documentation is typically (as in this case) the consequence of an error which occurs when the affected party is a child, and has no control over her own affairs.
20. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to issue revised Class X and Class XII certificates to the petitioner, incorporating her correct date of birth. The respondents will communicate the conditions for issuance of the revised certificates to the petitioner. Mr. Jain states that the petitioner will comply with the conditions imposed. The certificates will bear endorsements of the correction in terms of Byelaw 69.3. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s further education depends upon the implementation of these directions, the respondents are directed to issue the revised certificates within two weeks from today.
21. The writ petition stands disposed of in these terms.
AUGUST 3, 2021/„vp‟ PRATEEK JALAN, J.