Kerala High Court: In a writ petition concerning the right of a child born through IVF to have her biological father’s name recorded in her birth certificate, a Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., held that statutory procedures should not become instruments of injustice when they prevent the recognition of undisputed facts. The Court observed that although the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (1969 Act, ) does not expressly provide for the subsequent insertion of a father’s name in the birth register of a child originally registered as born to a single mother, Constitutional Courts possess wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to remedy injustice and safeguard fundamental rights. Emphasising the child’s right to identity, dignity, and recognition under Article 21, the Court directed the authorities to correct the birth records and include the name of the biological father.
Background
The case concerns a child born through in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to Petitioner 1 while she was in a live-in relationship with Petitioner 2. At the time of conception and birth, the parties were not married, although Petitioner 2 had donated his sperm for the IVF procedure and was the biological father of the child. Due to misunderstandings between the parties and the circumstances prevailing at the time, the father’s name was not entered in the birth register of the child.
Subsequently, the petitioners reconciled and married each other. A second child was later born from their marital relationship, and the second petitioner’s name was duly recorded as the father in that child’s birth certificate. The petitioners thereafter sought to have the biological father’s name entered in the birth register of their first child as well.
To regularise the status of their first child, Petitioner 1 approached the Family Court seeking a declaration of paternity. The Family Court recorded the settlement and passed a decree accordingly.
However, the Registrar of Births and Deaths and the Secretary Panchayat refused the request, not on the ground of any dispute regarding paternity, but because the statutory framework did not provide a mechanism for inserting the father’s name in the circumstances presented. Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions to record Petitioner 2 as the father of the first child in the birth register, contending that the omission adversely affected the child’s identity and dignity.
Analysis
Before proceeding to the legal analysis, the Court situated the case within a broader human and cultural frame. Invoking the character of Karna from the Mahabharata, a child of noble parentage whose identity was withheld from him, the Court observed that in the present case, both parents want to declare to the world that the second petitioner is the child’s father, but the law does not permit it. Quoting Mr. Bumble’s observation from Charles Dickens’s Oliver Twist that “law is an ass,” the Court acknowledged that some statutory provisions, even two centuries later, fail to keep pace with human reality
“Even now, some legal provisions in our country are like an ass. But in such situations, it is the duty of the constitutional court to interpret such laws with a human touch.”
The Court emphasised that the case was not about determining paternity, as the biological father had already acknowledged the child, and the Family Court had recorded the parties’ settlement. The dispute was entirely procedural.
“A blank space can wound more deeply than words. For a child, the blank space against the father’s name in her birth certificate is not merely an empty column, but it is a question mark on her legitimacy, a whisper of stigma, a wound inflicted by her parents’ past quarrel.”
The Court observed that a birth certificate is a person’s first public identity document and that leaving the father’s name blank could inflict lasting psychological and social harm upon the child. The Court viewed the issue through the lens of the child’s right to identity and dignity, which form part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Relying on its earlier decision in Anitha C. v. State of Kerala, (2026) 2 KHC 313, the Court reiterated that in exceptional cases involving the welfare and dignity of a child, it may intervene to ensure complete justice.
The Court acknowledged that the 1969 Act does not contain any specific provision permitting the correction of a child’s name or the subsequent insertion of a father’s name in the birth register of a child originally registered as born to a single mother. However, the Court held that the absence of a statutory provision does not prevent it from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in appropriate cases.The Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the child’s paternity. The biological father had expressly acknowledged the child; the parents were legally married, and both parents desired that the father’s name be recorded in the birth certificate. The child also had a legitimate interest in having her father’s identity accurately reflected in official records.
Emphasising the child’s right to identity, dignity, and recognition under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court held that procedural limitations should not operate to the detriment of an innocent child. In circumstances where the correction sought reflects the true facts and serves the welfare of the child, the High Court is empowered to intervene and grant appropriate relief. Accordingly, the Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to direct the correction of the birth register and the inclusion of the father’s name.
“The panchayat’s stand is only procedural. The family’s plea is psychological, and the child’s unspoken claim is dignity. In such circumstances, while entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit to count commas, full stops, or blanks in the Rules and statutes. This Court sits to ensure that the law does not become the last instrument of psychological cruelty to a child who was never at fault. The law is meant to record life, not to resist it.”
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Court:
-
set aside the Registrar’s rejection order,
-
directed the authorities to change the child’s name in the birth register,
-
directed the authorities to insert the second petitioner’s name as the father of the child,
-
ordered that the correction be made through a marginal entry without altering the original record, and
-
directed issuance of a fresh birth certificate within 30 days.
[X v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 25973 of 2024, decided on 1-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Julia Priya Reshmy, T. Sajayan Jacob, Abhitha Khan
For Respondent: Vidya Kuriakose, Government Pleader; K. Shaj, Standing Counsel, Pallickal Grama Panchayat, Pathanamthitta
