Child Cannot Be Punished for Parents’ False Birth-Date Entry: Delhi High Court Orders School and Central Board to Correct Records
Facts
Master Aarav Giri was admitted to St. Columba’s School on 1 April 2014 for the Kindergarten academic session of 2014–15.
At the time of admission, his parents recorded his date of birth as 23 March 2010.
The school’s admission notification restricted eligibility to children born between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010. Therefore, the date declared by Aarav’s parents placed him within the eligible age group.
Aarav subsequently claimed that his correct date of birth was 23 April 2010—exactly one month later than the date entered in the school’s admission records.
The following public and official documents reflected 23 April 2010 as his date of birth:
- Birth certificate issued on 5 April 2011 by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Delhi;
- Aadhaar Card;
- Passport; and
- Medical records of Kolmet Hospital and Medical Research Centre, where he was born.
The identity cards issued by the school for the academic years 2019–20, 2023–24 and 2024–25 also reflected the date of birth as 23 April 2010.
The list of students initially registered with the Central Board of Secondary Education for Class 9, based on information provided by the school, similarly showed 23 April 2010.
However, when the school submitted the final list of candidates for the Class 10 Board Examination for the 2025–26 academic session, it recorded Aarav’s date of birth as 23 March 2010.
Aarav’s father requested the school and the Central Board of Secondary Education to correct the date. No rectification was made.
Aarav consequently approached the Delhi High Court through his father and guardian, seeking correction of his date of birth in the school and Board records.
The school opposed the request, arguing that Aarav had obtained admission only because his parents declared the earlier date. If his correct date were accepted, he would have been ineligible for admission to Kindergarten in the 2014–15 session.
The Central Board argued that its record matched the school’s original admission record and could not independently be changed under its examination bye-laws.
Issues
- Whether the Court could direct correction of Aarav’s date of birth when the Central Board’s record was consistent with the original school admission record.
- Whether a birth certificate, Aadhaar Card, passport and hospital records could justify correction despite a contrary entry made during school admission.
- Whether Aarav’s Kindergarten admission should be treated as invalid because his parents furnished an incorrect date of birth to satisfy the eligibility criteria.
- Whether a minor child could be made to suffer throughout his academic and professional life because of wrongdoing committed by his parents when he was four years old.
- Whether the Central Board’s examination bye-laws prevented correction based on a court order and public documents.
- Whether Aarav’s parents should face consequences for deliberately furnishing incorrect information and a conflicting birth certificate.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Aarav argued that his correct date of birth was 23 April 2010 and that it was consistently reflected in all reliable public documents.
His parents claimed that 23 March 2010 was entered in the school admission form through inadvertence.
They relied upon the Directorate of Education’s circular dated 31 July 2015, which prescribed a procedure for correcting dates of birth incorrectly recorded in recognised schools.
According to the petitioner, steps were taken during the 2017–18 academic year to rectify the school record. This was supported by multiple school identity cards subsequently showing 23 April 2010.
The petitioner argued that the school later repeated the incorrect entry while submitting the Class 10 candidate list to the Central Board.
The discrepancy could create serious problems in:
- College admissions in India and abroad;
- Verification of identity;
- Passport and immigration processes;
- Future employment; and
- Other official transactions.
Aarav further argued that the Central Board’s examination bye-laws were directory and could not override genuine claims supported by statutory public documents carrying a legal presumption of correctness.
Respondent’s Arguments
School’s Arguments
The school argued that Aarav’s parents deliberately declared his date of birth as 23 March 2010 because only children born on or before 31 March 2010 were eligible for admission.
Had the correct date of 23 April 2010 been disclosed, Aarav would not have qualified for Kindergarten admission in the 2014–15 session.
The admission form had been signed by both parents, and a birth certificate showing 23 March 2010 was allegedly submitted with it.
The school denied formally correcting its records in 2017. It argued that the identity cards relied upon by Aarav were printed by an outsourced agency based on information provided by the parents.
Any inconsistent date printed on those cards did not amount to an authorised amendment of the school’s official admission register.
The school contended that accepting the corrected date would render Aarav’s original admission void from the beginning.
Central Board’s Arguments
The Central Board argued that its records were based on the information provided by the school.
The date of birth in the Board record—23 March 2010—was consistent with the school’s original admission register.
Under its examination bye-laws, the Board could ordinarily correct typographical errors to make its certificates consistent with the school records.
Since there was no mismatch between the Board and school records, the Central Board contended that it could not independently make the requested correction.
Analysis of the Law
Central Board Examination Bye-Laws
Bye-law 69.2 states that the date of birth recorded in the Board’s records cannot ordinarily be changed.
However, Bye-law 69.3 recognises two methods of correction:
- Correction to make the Board certificate consistent with school records in cases of genuine clerical error; and
- Correction based upon an order of a court.
Therefore, the Court’s authority to direct correction is not confined to cases where the Board record differs from the school record.
A court may order correction based on reliable public documents even if the original school and Board records contain the same incorrect entry.
Presumption Attached to Public Documents
A birth certificate issued by the competent registration authority is a public document carrying a legal presumption of correctness.
Similar evidentiary importance may attach to official records such as passports, Aadhaar Cards and medical records.
When these documents consistently support one date of birth, the burden shifts to the party opposing correction to rebut their genuineness or accuracy.
In Aarav’s case, the respondents did not dispute the genuineness of the birth certificate dated 5 April 2011, passport, Aadhaar Card or hospital records showing 23 April 2010.
Protection of the Child
Aarav was approximately four years old when his parents submitted the school admission form. He had no role in selecting or declaring the incorrect date.
A child cannot be held responsible for misrepresentation or unethical conduct committed by parents to secure admission.
By the time the case was decided, Aarav had studied at the school for nearly a decade, passed Classes 10 and 11 and entered Class 12.
Declaring his admission void at that stage would disproportionately punish the child and cause lasting damage to his educational future.
Consequences for the Parents
Although the child deserved protection, the Court found that the parents appeared to have deliberately furnished an incorrect date and a supporting document to obtain admission.
Equitable relief for the child did not require the Court to excuse the parents’ misconduct.
The Court therefore balanced the competing considerations by correcting Aarav’s records while imposing exemplary costs on his parents.
Precedent Analysis
Jigya Yadav v. Central Board of Secondary Education
The Supreme Court distinguished between a “correction” and a “change” in school certificates.
It held that there can be only one true date of birth. A request supported by reliable public documents is therefore a correction intended to reflect the correct factual position, not a change to a date chosen by the student.
The Supreme Court recognised two situations:
- Correction to make Board records consistent with school records; and
- Correction based upon public documents and a declaration or order of a court.
Public documents such as birth certificates, Aadhaar Cards, election cards and Official Gazette notifications carry a legal presumption of correctness.
Where a student approaches a court with such documents, the presumption operates in their favour. The opposing party may rebut that presumption, and the court must then examine the genuineness and necessity of the requested correction.
Once the court permits the correction, the Central Board ordinarily has no basis to conduct a fresh factual inquiry.
Applying Jigya Yadav, the Delhi High Court held that it could direct correction even though the Central Board’s record matched the original school record.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the genuine contemporaneous public documents consistently recorded Aarav’s date of birth as 23 April 2010.
Their authenticity was not disputed.
At the same time, the respondents produced an admission form and another birth certificate showing 23 March 2010. Aarav did not specifically controvert the existence of that conflicting certificate.
The Court therefore concluded that Aarav’s parents had likely furnished the incorrect date deliberately to make him eligible for admission to Kindergarten.
However, Aarav himself was only four years old and could not be blamed for his parents’ actions.
The Court rejected the school’s argument that his admission should be declared void from the beginning. He had already studied continuously for nearly a decade and completed Classes 10 and 11.
There was also no suggestion that his correct date of birth made him ineligible to sit for the Class 10 or Class 12 Board Examinations.
Refusing correction would create a permanent inconsistency between his educational certificate and all other official identity documents. This could obstruct college admissions and raise unnecessary doubts about his identity.
The Court therefore adopted a lenient and child-centred approach while separately penalising the parents.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed Aarav’s writ petition subject to payment of ₹2 lakh as exemplary costs by his parents.
The Court directed Aarav to submit a formal correction application to the school and the Central Board along with his:
- Birth certificate;
- Aadhaar Card; and
- Passport.
Upon receiving the application, the school and the Central Board were directed to:
- Correct Aarav’s date of birth from 23 March 2010 to 23 April 2010 in their internal records;
- Correct the date in his Class 10 Board certificate; and
- Register 23 April 2010 as his date of birth for the Class 12 Board Examination.
The correction was required to be completed within four weeks.
Aarav’s parents were directed to deposit ₹2 lakh within two weeks with the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The entire amount was to be used exclusively to support the education or higher education of the children of the Bar Association’s staff.
Case Details
Case: Master Aarav Giri Through Guardian Mr. Abhishek Giri v. St. Columba’s School & Another
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2158 of 2025
Judge: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date: 17 July 2026
Result: Writ petition allowed subject to payment of ₹2 lakh exemplary costs by the petitioner’s parents. The school and the Central Board of Secondary Education were directed to correct the petitioner’s date of birth to 23 April 2010 within four weeks and use the corrected date for his Class 12 Board Examination.
