In a significant ruling centred on a child’s right to identity and dignity, the Kerala High Court directed authorities to add a father’s name to the birth certificate of a girl born through IVF before her parents were formally married. The Court held that procedural limitations under existing law could not stand in the way of correcting official records when both parents acknowledged the child and sought the change.
Background of the Case
The case concerned a couple who had been in a relationship while working abroad. During that period, the woman underwent IVF treatment using sperm donated by her partner.
Their daughter was born in 2012. As the couple was not married at the time and the mother was treated as a single parent, the father's name was left blank in the birth records.
The couple later married and had a second child, whose birth certificate correctly reflected the names of both parents. They also secured a Family Court order recognising the man as the biological father of their elder daughter and agreed that his name should be included in all her official documents.
However, local authorities declined to make the correction, stating that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 did not contain any provision permitting the addition of a father's name after a birth had been registered as that of a single parent.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that there was no dispute regarding the child’s parentage and that both parents had unequivocally accepted the child and sought correction of the records.
In a strongly worded judgment, the Court highlighted the emotional and psychological impact that an incomplete birth record could have on a child.
“The question before this Court is stark,” the judge observed while considering whether a procedural technicality could deprive a child of the right to identity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further remarked that a blank column in a birth certificate was not merely an administrative omission but could become a source of stigma and emotional distress for the child.
Referring to earlier decisions, the Court emphasised that constitutional courts possess the authority to intervene in exceptional cases where strict adherence to procedural rules results in injustice.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the communication issued by the local authority refusing the requested correction.
The Court directed the authorities to change the child’s name in the birth records and to add the father's name. It further ordered that the correction be made through a marginal entry in the register without altering the original entry.
The authorities were also directed to issue a fresh birth certificate reflecting the corrected details within 30 days from receipt of the judgment.
The petition was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
Case Title: X & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 25973 of 2024
Judge: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Decision Date: June 1, 2026
