- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41861 WP No. 29858 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 29858 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VIMALA RAJA W/O NILKANT PILLAI RAJAGOPAL (ALSO KNOWN AS NILKANT P RAJAGOPAL) AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT NO.2103 PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN, ITPL MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 048. 2. SMT. MONISHA RAJA D/O NILKANT PILLAI RAJAGOPAL (ALSO KNOWN AS NILKANT P RAJAGOPAL) AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.2103, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN ITPL MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU-560 048 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT MOVVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (NOW GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY) BENGALURU EAST DIVISION, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41861 WP No. 29858 of 2025 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002 3. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (NOW GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY) BENGALURU EAST DIVISION, N R SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002 4. UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BANGLA SAHIB RD, BEHIND KALI MANDIR, GOLE MARKET, NEW DELHI – 110 001 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (STATISTICS) CUM MEDICAL OFFICER (YELAHANKA) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, YELAHANKA SUB DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 & R5; SRI.B .M.KUSHALAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENTS AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO CORRECT THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE NILKANT P. RAJAGOPAL (ALSO KNOWN AS NILKANT PILLAI RAJAGOPAL) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-S BY RECORDING HIS NAME AS SUCH, IN PLACE OF THE INCORRECT ENTRY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41861 WP No. 29858 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to correct the name of the husband of the petitioner No.1 as mentioned in his death certificate. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.Aa.Y(Ya Va)/Ja.Ma/P.R/05/25-26 dated 22.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.5. They have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.4 to carry out corresponding corrections in the Aadhar database. 2. (i) The petitioners claimed that the husband of the petitioner No.1 retired as a Major in the Indian Army. His name as recorded in the registers maintained by the Indian Army was Nilkant Pillai Rajagopal. They contend that the said name appears on the identity card issued by the Indian Army. Likewise, the Permanent Account Number card issued by the Income Tax Department also bears the same name. Similarly, the passport issued also bears the same name. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41861 WP No. 29858 of 2025 (ii) The husband of the petitioner No.1 renounced his Indian citizenship and was issued a passport by the United States of America, which also bears the same name. The petitioners have placed on record the documents of service maintained by the Ministry of Defence, which also show that his name was Nilkant Pillai Rajagopal. He was issued with an Overseas Citizenship of India (henceforth referred to as ‘OCI’ for short) card, which also carried the same name. (iii) The petitioners claim that in the passport issued by the Indian authorities (vide Annexure-C), petitioner No.1's husband name i.e. 'Nilkant Pillai' is indicated in the column of legal guardian thereby wrongly insinuating that this is her father-in-law's name, and in the Aadhar card, the petitioner No.1 husband's name is mentioned as P Raja Gopal and his father's name wrongly recorded as 'PKN Pullai' instead of 'Pillai'. The petitioners have also placed on record the driving licence issued by the authorities in New York State, which indicates his name as Rajagopal Nilkant P. Likewise, a social security card issued by the United States of America, which indicates his name as Nilkant P Rajagopal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41861 WP No. 29858 of 2025 (iv) The petitioners claim that the husband of petitioner No.1 died on 02.02.2024 and while recording his name in the death certificate, it was mentioned as P Raja Gopal and the name Nilkant and the surname Pillai were also missing. Following this, the petitioners submitted a representation with the respondents on 16.04.2025 to correct his name and also produced various records in support of their claim. However, the respondent No.5 issued an endorsement bearing No.Aa.Y (Ya Va)/Ja.Ma/P.R/05/25-26 dated 22.05.2025, rejecting the request on the ground that there is no provision to correct the name under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1969' for short). The petitioners are therefore before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 15 of the Act, 1969, there is a provision for correction of errors in the death and birth certificates. He therefore submits that the mistake while describing the husband of the petitioner No.1 has to be corrected so as to enable the petitioners to claim the benefits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41861 WP No. 29858 of 2025 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 submits that under Section 15 of the Act, 1969, it is only clerical errors that can be corrected and not the name of the person who has died. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the entry in the Aadhar card is based on other documents, which are furnished and therefore, if there is any correction in the death certificate of the husband of the petitioner No.1, corresponding corrections would be carried out in the Aadhar database. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which reads as follows: "15. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41861 WP No. 29858 of 2025 the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation." 8. The documents produced by the petitioners overwhelmingly indicate that the name of the husband of petitioner No.1 was Nilkant Pillai Rajagopal. The respondent No.5, who is bound to look into the mistakes crept into the register of deaths and make appropriate corrections as provided in Section 15 of the Act, 1969, failed in his duty by issuing the impugned endorsement. A perusal of Section 15 of the Act, 1969, indicates beyond doubt that it is not merely clerical errors that can be corrected but also any error in form or substance or any entry made fraudulently or improperly, subject however to the due satisfaction of the Registrar. Once a request is made, the respondent No.5 is bound to conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether the request for correction of entries in the concerned Registrar is genuine and proper. On being satisfied the respondent No.5 is bound to make appropriate corrections as provided under Rule 11 of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41861 WP No. 29858 of 2025 Karnataka Registration of Births And Deaths Rules, 1999 (henceforth referred to as 'the Rules, 1999' for short). 9. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.5 is quashed. The respondent No.5 is directed to conduct an enquiry as provided under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1999 and if he is satisfied that the mistake in mentioning the name of the husband of the petitioner No.1 in the death certificate is erroneous, he shall pass appropriate orders directing the correction of the name of the husband of the petitioner No.1. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once the same is done, the respondent No.4 shall take appropriate steps for correction in the Aadhar data base in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41