Delhi High Court: In an appeal arising from Single Judge’s judgment dismissing writ petition whereby the appellant sought correction of his date of birth (DOB) in records maintained by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) nearly 8 years after issuance of the CBSE certificate, and consequential issuance of a fresh Class X Board Examination Certificate, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya*, CJ., and Tejas Karia, J., affirmed the Single Judge’s judgment, holding that,
-
The claim for correction of DOB in the CBSE certificate was barred by limitation under the applicable CBSE bye-laws.
-
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to serve a cause which is barred by time.
-
The appellant’s claim was founded upon 2 contradictory birth certificates and lacked reliable supporting material.
-
Appropriate statutory and civil remedies remained available to resolve the dispute concerning the actual date of birth.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the dispute arose due to the existence of 2 birth certificates issued under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. One birth certificate recorded the appellant’s DOB as 14 September 2000, with registration dated 7 December 2002 and place of birth shown as Police Quarters, Naraina. The second birth certificate, issued on 26 November 2023, recorded the DOB as 14 September 1999, with the place of birth mentioned as Jaipur Golden Hospital.
The appellant’s Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by CBSE on 28 May 2016 recorded his DOB as 14 September 2000. According to the appellant, after joining the National Defence Academy (NDA) and subsequently the Indian Military Academy, he visited the Passport Seva Kendra, Pune on 21 July 2023 for obtaining a passport. There he allegedly discovered that an earlier passport issued in his name in the year 2000 reflected his DOB as 14 September 1999. On verification through the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) website, he procured a birth certificate showing the DOB as 14 September 1999 and thereafter approached the Court seeking correction of his CBSE records and to issue a fresh Class X Board Examination Certificate reflecting the corrected DOB.
Single Judge’s Decision
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 16 April 2024, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, (2021) 7 SCC 535, wherein it was held that the applicable CBSE bye-laws are those in force on the date when the certificate sought to be corrected was issued.
The Single Judge stated that since the CBSE certificate had been issued on 28 May 2016, the governing provision was the CBSE Notification dated 25 June 2015. Clause (iv) of Bye-law 69.2 stipulated that an application for correction of DOB, duly forwarded by the Head of School, would be entertained only within 1 year from the declaration of result and no correction would be made after that period.
The Single Judge also noticed that the appellant had never approached the school authorities for forwarding any application, not made any application to CBSE before filing the writ petition and the request for correction was made nearly 8 years after issuance of the CBSE certificate.
Further, the Single Judge rejected the submission that the 1-year limitation applied only to proceedings before CBSE and not to writ proceedings under Article 226 and held that what could not be done directly could not be permitted indirectly through writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petition.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether the limitation prescribed under CBSE Bye-law 69.2 could be circumvented through writ proceedings?
-
Whether the existence of 2 contradictory birth certificates justified issuance of directions to CBSE.
-
Whether alternative statutory remedies under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Registration of Births and Deaths Act) were available to the appellant?
Analysis
The Court concurred with the reasoning of the Single Judge and held that the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav had categorically recognised the binding nature of the CBSE bye-laws prescribing the period within which correction of DOB may be sought. It reiterated that the relevant procedure is the one prevailing on the date of issuance of the certificate sought to be corrected. Since the certificate was issued in 2016, the applicable notification was that dated 25 June 2015, which mandated that an application for correction of date of birth be made within one year from declaration of the result. The notification expressly prohibited any correction after expiry of that period.
The Court observed that the appellant had admittedly never approached either the school authorities or CBSE. Consequently, it held that even assuming the claim was otherwise maintainable, it was hopelessly barred by time under the governing CBSE regulations.
The Court agreed with the Single Judge that Article 226 cannot be permitted to be pressed to serve a cause which is otherwise barred by time.
The Court found that the appellant had failed to produce any reliable public document supporting his claim except 2 birth certificates issued by the MCD stating different dates of birth and even different places of birth. It opined that no relief could be granted on the basis of such contradictory documents. Accordingly, it held that the writ petition was rightly dismissed.
The Court distinguished Nisha Ray v. CBSE, W.P. (C) No. 6554/2023, by observing that correction there had been sought on the basis of consistent public documents, including an Aadhaar Card and a birth registration certificate maintained by statutory authorities. It held that since reliable statutory records supported the correction in that case, the precedent was inapplicable to the appellant’s circumstances.
The Court observed that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act provide a complete framework for registration, correction and appeal. The Court noted that Section 12 contemplates issuance of extracts from the register of births and deaths, Section 15 provides a mechanism for correction or cancellation of erroneous entries and Section 25-A provides an appellate remedy against actions or orders of the Registrar or District Registrar.
The Court stated that the two birth certificates relied upon by the appellant were merely extracts from the statutory register. If any discrepancy existed in those records, the proper course was to invoke Section 15 for correction and, if necessary, avail the appellate remedy under Section 25-A.
The Court further referred to Rule 11, Delhi Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 which prescribes procedures for correction or cancellation of entries in the register, including correction of clerical errors, substantive errors and fraudulently made entries.
The Court held that the appellant ought to have approached the competent authority under Section 15, Registration of Births and Deaths Act read with Rule 11, Delhi Registration of Births and Deaths Rules for resolution of the discrepancy in the birth records. It emphasised that only after securing correction of the statutory birth records could any request appropriately be made to CBSE.
The Court additionally observed that another course available to the appellant was to institute appropriate civil proceedings before a competent court seeking a declaration regarding his correct DOB.
Decision
The Court found no good ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment dated 16 April 2024. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal. However, it granted liberty to the appellant to pursue such remedies as may be available under law, including remedies under Sections 15 and 25-A, Registration of Births and Deaths Act or other appropriate proceedings.
Also Read: CBSE introduces Real-Time CCTV Guidelines for safer school environments
[Rewant Ahlawat v. CBSE, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4581, decided on 4-6-2026]
*Judgment authored by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Ms. Rajul Jain, Ms. Poorvi Rewalia, Mr. Manikant Sharma, Advs., Counsel for the Appellant
Ms. Manisha Singh, ASC for CBSE. Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Adv., Counsel for the Respondent 2 and 3
Ms. Arti Bansal, ASC, Counsel for the Respondent 4/MCD
