Mangaluru: Civil courts in Mangaluru have rejected 18 original civil suits seeking directions to competent authorities for changing names in birth and death certificates so far in 2026, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
The suits, filed between January and March 2026, were dismissed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court along with five Additional Civil Judge and JMFC courts between March and June 29. The courts ruled that the authority to correct or alter entries in the birth and death register lies exclusively with the Registrar (Births and Deaths), and not with civil courts.
In most of these cases, the orders were passed ex parte as no representative of the Mangaluru City Corporation, designated as the Registrar (Births and Deaths), appeared before the court.
Courts cite lack of jurisdiction
The civil courts held that Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, empowers only the Registrar to carry out corrections or cancellations of entries in the birth and death register.
While rejecting the suits, the courts relied on a recent Karnataka High Court judgment in Regular First Appeal No. 2454/2024, which clarified that civil courts cannot entertain original suits seeking rectification of entries in birth and death certificates.
According to the High Court, the statutory mechanism under Section 15 provides adequate powers to the Registrar to deal with both clerical mistakes and substantial errors relating to personal particulars recorded in birth and death certificates. The court observed that correction of names is an administrative function specifically entrusted to the Registrar and that civil courts should not be burdened with such matters.
The ruling has since become the basis for dismissing similar suits filed before subordinate courts across Mangaluru.
High Court issues guidelines
In another significant judgment delivered in February 2025, the Karnataka High Court observed that the State Government had not acted upon the Karnataka State Law Commission’s 2013 recommendation to introduce Section 15A into the Registration of Births and Deaths Act.
The proposed provision would have created a statutory framework for permitting changes of name in the birth register.
Pending legislative action, the High Court framed guidelines for Registrars while considering applications seeking a change of name. It stated that where a parent requests a name change, the Registrar may retain the original entry while making an endorsement recording the newly adopted name in the birth register.
The High Court said such an approach would preserve the authenticity of official records while allowing individuals to reflect their changed names through an administrative process.
Administrative uncertainty continues
Despite the High Court guidelines, applicants continue to face practical difficulties in obtaining name corrections.
Deputy Commissioner H.V. Darshan, who is also serving as the Administrator of the Mangaluru City Corporation, said the absence of specific directions from the State Government has resulted in Registrars rejecting applications for name changes.
According to the Deputy Commissioner, applicants are often advised to approach civil courts even though the courts have now consistently ruled that they lack jurisdiction over such matters.
To resolve the issue, the district administration has written to the Government of Karnataka seeking permission for Registrars to record the new name alongside the original name in the birth register, in line with the High Court’s directions.
Officials believe such administrative clarity would help avoid unnecessary litigation and provide relief to citizens seeking corrections in official records.
Earlier cases saw different outcome
The recent dismissals stand in contrast to earlier decisions delivered by the same set of courts.
Records show that the six Civil Judge and JMFC courts in Mangaluru have allowed 89 suits seeking changes of name in birth and death registers as well as corrections in school and college records.
However, in four of those cases, the courts partly allowed the suits by directing educational institutions to update the names in their records while refusing to issue directions regarding changes in the birth register. The courts held that they were barred from granting such relief because the authority rests solely with the Registrar under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act.
The latest judgments reinforce the legal position that applications for corrections or name changes in birth and death records must be dealt with through the statutory administrative process rather than through civil litigation.
The matter now awaits further action from the Karnataka Government, which will determine whether Registrars receive formal powers and procedures to implement the High Court’s guidelines uniformly across the State.