A Case Note onMamta Sharma (Appellant) v.

CBSE (Respondents)

Term Assignment Law of Evidence Semester VII Div.-A

Submitted To U. Vardhrajan Asst Prof, Law of Evidence

Submitted By Rajdeep Singh Chouhan 10BBL007

Introduction The case opted for, Mamta Sharma v. C.B.S.E & Another., is a case before the High Court of Delhi, wherein, an eminent point of law of evidence, i.e, entitlement of correction has been discussed. The sections in pertinence are sections 13 and 35 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Background of the CaseIn the given case, the petitioner, Mamta Sharma, alongwith her brother Vijaya Sharma, filed two Writ Petitions, seeking directions that the respondent, CBSE should correct their date of birth in the certificates issued by it. The appellants contended that the Vijaya Sharma's correct date of birth is 26.01.1969 and that of Mamta Sharma is 05.06.1972. The issue in the case was whether Petitioner was entitled for correction of date of birth in issued certificates. To support their averments, the appellants presented the enquiry proceedings of Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) which concluded in an order stating that the date of birth in the CBSE records were not correct and the respective date of birth of the said appellants were 26.01.1969 and 05.06.1972. Mr. Kartar Singh, the then SDM, who conducted the proceedings filed an affidavit stating he had duly conducted the enquiry and the materials taken into account by him to direct correction of the date of birth. The learned counsel submitted by citing two cases namely, H. Subbarao v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr, and G.V. Vijarangan v. The State Bank of India, that the order of the SDM under Section 13 was not conclusive but was an important piece of evidence. The learned counsel, cited a Supreme Court judgment from Cidco vs. Vasudha Gorkhnath Mandevlekar wherein it was held that the entries in the logs maintained under the Birth and Death Register and the Rules framed under it were presumed. The admissibility of Birth and Death Register, which is presumed to establish the correctness of the entries, is cemented by the provisions under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The impugned order noted SDMs judgment, which led to the entry in the Birth and Death Register. Learned Single Judge also placed the history of these two cases in the previous order and the rationale which persuaded the Division Bench to set aside the learned Single Judge's earlier determination. Another case, Zunnoor Faisal v. CBSE & Anr., was cited wherein the change in date of birth was of no good to the petitioner. Also the steps to correct the date of birth were initiated within a year of the results being declared.
Presentation of Courts Opnion

The Court had considered the submissions and materials on record. Even when the appellant's arguments about the evidentiary value to be given to entries in the Birth and Death Register were not doubted, by virtue of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act which make them admissible as evidence; the weightage depends on circumstances of each case. However, it was discovered by the Court noticed that the entries were not made at the time of the birth, but post SDM's order in 2000, i.e., almost 28 and 30 years after the event, i.e. births of the two petitioners respectively, and 18 and 16 years after the Matriculation Board Examination Results were declared in 1982 and 1985. This makes it unfit for the Court to assume that such entries have to be accorded some righteous presumption. With regards to the SDM enquiry, the court found that records of the SDM enquiry were not available and that the affidavit was sworn 5-6 years after the incident. These circumstances, as court opines, are sufficient to alert the Court considering the justness or legality of such a claim, to entirely rely upon it. An official dealing with several files each day to remember the facts of the case, which, here, were referred to six years later. Therefore, entry in the Birth and Death Register and the SDMs affidavit could not have been conclusive. It was held, Court was conscious that CBSE's Rules of non-interference for change/correction of Date of Birth extended to two years after declaration of result of Class X examination and Court does not deem appropriate to question or correct it in these proceedings.
Analysis

The Court had admitted that S. 35 of the Indian Evidence Act weighs the enrolments in Birth and Death Registers as an admissible evidence, but depending on case to case. And the SDMs affidavit too, was too late, and the enquiry by the same authority, made the entries happen. Although relevant cases were cited, but the proceedings of this case dont allow the claim of the petitioner to stand validated. Also Court acknowledges the CBSE Rules and doesnt think fit to question them in such proceedings.
Conclusion

The Court has very rightly decided the case by not just going by the legal provisions and the cases cited by the appellants, but also carefully pondering and scrutinizing the facts of the case. It is alarming to learn that evidence from an authority like SDM can too be not held to be decisive enough.