Delhi High Court: In a matter concerning the correction of a student’s date of birth in educational records, a Single Judge Bench of Vikas Mahajan, J. allowed the writ petition and held that authentic public documents, including the Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, and Passport, which carry a presumption of correctness, can form the basis for correction of educational records when their genuineness is undisputed. Thus, a student’s educational records may be corrected on the basis of reliable statutory public documents, even where the school and CBSE records are consistent with each other, as a court’s power to order correction is not restricted by the limitations applicable to the CBSE under its bye-laws.
Accordingly, the Court issued the following directions:
-
The petitioner was directed to submit appropriate application(s) before the school and the CBSE seeking rectification of his date of birth, along with the requisite documents, including the Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, and Passport, all of which reflected his date of birth as 23 April 2010.
-
Upon receipt of such application(s), the school and the CBSE were directed to rectify the petitioner’s date of birth in their respective records and in the Class X CBSE certificate, in accordance with the date of birth mentioned in the petitioner’s Birth Certificate issued on 5 April 2011, Aadhaar Card, and Passport. The Court directed that the necessary corrections be completed within a period of 4 weeks.
-
The CBSE was further directed to record the petitioner’s correct date of birth, i.e. 23 April 2010, for the purpose of his Class XII Board Examination records.
However, while granting relief to the petitioner, the Court observed that the petitioner’s parents had furnished incorrect information at the time of admission and imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 upon them.
Background
The petitioner was admitted to St. Columba’s School in Kindergarten (KG) on 1 April 2014. At the time of admission, his date of birth was erroneously recorded as 23 March 2010 instead of 23 April 2010, which, according to the petitioner, occurred due to an inadvertent mistake made by his parents while completing the admission formalities. The petitioner contended that his correct date of birth was consistently reflected in all statutory and public documents, including the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Delhi, his Aadhaar Card, Passport, and the records of Kolmet Hospital & Medical Research Centre where he was born. The school also issued identity cards for academic years 2019—2020, 2023—2024, and 2024—2025 reflecting the correct date of birth. Further, at the stage of Class IX registration with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the list prepared by the school initially recorded the petitioner’s correct date of birth. However, while forwarding the final particulars to the CBSE before the issuance of the Class X Board Examination admit cards, the school incorrectly mentioned the petitioner’s date of birth as 23 March 2010. Although the petitioner’s father subsequently submitted representations to both the school and the CBSE seeking correction of the error, supported by the relevant statutory documents, no corrective action was taken, compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
Issue
Whether the Court could direct the correction of the petitioner’s date of birth in the CBSE records despite the fact that the date recorded by the CBSE was consistent with the records maintained by the school.
Analysis and Decision
Referring to Bye-laws 69.2 and 69.3 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, 2018, the Court noted that while the CBSE is ordinarily empowered to make corrections only to ensure consistency between its records and the school records, the bye-laws themselves expressly recognise the authority of a court of law to direct such corrections. Therefore, the Court held that its jurisdiction to order correction of the date of birth was not restricted by the limitations imposed on the CBSE under its administrative bye-laws.
The Court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 415, wherein it was held that statutory public documents such as Birth Certificates, Aadhaar Cards, Passports and Official Gazette notifications carry a legal presumption of correctness under the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court observed that where such public documents establish a different date of birth from that recorded in the school or CBSE records, a court is competent to direct correction after satisfying itself about the genuineness of those documents. Since the respondents did not dispute the authenticity of the petitioner’s Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, Passport or hospital records, the Court accepted these documents as reliable evidence of the petitioner’s correct date of birth.
The Court further observed that although the petitioner’s parents had furnished an incorrect date of birth at the time of admission to the school, the petitioner himself could not be held responsible for that act. It noted that the petitioner was only about 4 years old at the time of admission and had no role in the preparation or submission of the admission documents. Consequently, the Court held that the consequences of the parents’ conduct could not be visited upon the petitioner, particularly when he had already pursued his education in the school for nearly a decade and had successfully completed Classes X and XI.
While considering the respondents’ argument that the petitioner would have been ineligible for admission had the correct date of birth been disclosed, the Court declined to invalidate the admission retrospectively. It observed that at such a distant point of time, after the petitioner had completed almost his entire schooling, declaring his admission void would be wholly inequitable and contrary to the interests of justice. The Court therefore preferred to protect the educational career of the petitioner rather than reopen the legality of his admission made years earlier.
The Court also emphasised the practical implications of maintaining inconsistent records. It observed that the date of birth recorded in the Class X CBSE certificate is a foundational document for admission to higher educational institutions in India and abroad and is frequently relied upon for identity verification. Any discrepancy between the CBSE certificate and other statutory documents would likely result in avoidable legal and administrative difficulties for the petitioner. The Court therefore concluded that correction of the records was necessary to ensure consistency across all official documents and to prevent future prejudice.
However, the Court did not ignore the conduct of the petitioner’s parents. It observed that they appeared to have deliberately furnished incorrect information and a supporting document regarding the petitioner’s date of birth at the time of admission, thereby resorting to unethical means. While granting relief to the petitioner, the Court held that such conduct deserved to be discouraged. Accordingly, it made the correction of the petitioner’s records conditional upon the payment of exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 by the petitioner’s parents.
“No fault can be found with the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot-free, as they appear to have deliberately furnished incorrect information and a document with regard to his date of birth, and thereby resorted to unethical means. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid directions shall be subject to the payment of exemplary costs.”
The Court noted that the school did not have an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) students’ quota or any dedicated corpus fund for students belonging to that category, where the exemplary costs imposed on the petitioner’s parents could be utilised. Accordingly, the Court directed that the said amount of ₹2,00,000 be deposited by the petitioner’s parents with the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) for the educational benefit of the children of its staff.
[Master Aarav Giri v. St. Columba’s School, W.P.(C) 2158/2025, decided on 17-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sameer Rohatgi, Namit Suri, Rameezuddin Raja, Preetpal Singh and Anish, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Sachin Singh Dalal, Akshat Singh and Joe Sebastian, Advocates for Respondent No. 1.
Atul Kumar and Arnav Kumar, Advocates for Respondent No. 2/CBSE.
