SANDEPU SWAROOPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

(2.) Sri M. Venkanna, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are wife and husband and their marriage was a love marriage. They belong to two different religions. The 1st petitioner is B.Sc., B.Ed. Graduate working as Journalist in "Nava Telangana" and the 2nd petitioner is a postgraduate with M.A.B.Ed. and she is also a writer and founder member of Osmania University Research Scholars Forum since 2013. Presently, she is working as Editor of "Campus Voice". It is submitted that the petitioners' son born on 23/3/2019 and was named as Evan Rudea. When they wanted to apply for birth certificate, they found that it is must to fill the religious status of the child in column No.9 without which the Application is incomplete and the same cannot be presented. Under the religion column, the options given are 1) Hindu, 2) Islam, 3) Christian and the 4th one is 'other religions'. "Any other" option also prescribed under Religion column only, but there is no option for non-religious practitioners or identity. It is submitted that India is a secular country and by virtue of these applications, they cannot compel a citizen to mention that he / she belongs to a particular religion against their will and wish by virtue of on line platform. It is submitted that the petitioners have made representations to all respondents and requested them to consider the request and give them a provision to claim the child status as non-religious and no caste. As this being an on line registration application format which will decide for all future purposes such as school admission certificate, etcetera, he could not fill his son's on line application format and did not get the birth certificate till now. Learned counsel submits that in 2011 August 14, the petitioners married without any religious rituals of any religion to which both of them belong respecting one another's belief, they want to live a democratic way of life. They want to bring the children without any religious formalities or caste practices as a non-believer family at their home or outside home. They wanted to nurture and nourish him in such a way that they cherish a true democratic and humanistic values in their day to day life. They have promised the child in their letter written to him which was filed with this affidavit in the material papers which speaks their outlook towards life. It is submitted that when the petitioners have posted this letter in facebook, they got hundreds of positive responses saying that they too want their children to bring up in a similar way. He submits that thereafter so many couples who want their children identity as "Non religious and no caste only". The cause of action arose on 7/4/2019 when the respondents have insisted to mention the religious identity in the application under column 9. In spite of their repeated representations and also submitting that their marriage is a inter-caste, interreligious marriage, the respondents failed to heed to their request. Then the 1st respondent has advised the petitioners to go and get permission from the municipal department by way of a G.O. or Rule or any authoritative guideline in this regard and in the absence of such thing they have rejected their application and the result is outright rejection of the birth certificate. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioners made several enquiries and they could not get any supporting material and approached the Secretariat and the Municipal Administration who asked them to give a written representation. Then on 14/4/2019, the petitioners made a written representation to Respondents 3 and 4 who are the highest authorities in the State and also Respondents 1 and 2 being the authorities at central level but they did not get any response from them. Again the petitioners made a representation seeking permission to identify as non-religious category but till date they have not received any such response. He submits that being a socially-conscious and responsible citizen, this problem is not faced by the petitioners alone and several people are suffering in a similar way, despite their total disagreement, they are forced to state their child's caste and religion against their will and wish. Even at the central level, Respondents 1 and 2 have to take the responsibility in addressing the issue. Learned counsel also submits that India is a secular country and everyone's belief has to be respected as per the Constitution of India. Every citizen has the right to choose and practice any religious way of life or non-religious way of living or ideology. No one can insist particular religious practice or status of identity. It has to be respected and recognized ones choice of practicing religion or not to practice any religion according to their choice. Disrespect in this regard is nothing but violating the fundamental rights of the citizen. He submits that this action of the respondents in insisting the petitioners to write the caste of the child is nothing but violating the constitutional rights guaranteed to a citizen. He further submits that whether one is an atheist, rationalist, radical humanist, socialist or a communist, he / she or all those who are lakhs in number in India and who claim and subscribe to this would definitely agree to the status of being recognized as "non- religious and no caste". He submits that even in our Indian Census enumeration, while enumerating the population, the primary aim is to give identity to every person, there is no such column called 'non-religious' in its list. If once the religion or caste is entered in the birth certificate, it will be a recurring problem to the parent and child not only at the stage of school admission but also at the stage of issuing school leaving certificate called TC they have to face the similar problem. There also arises the same problem, so it has to be addressed. Hence, when all the respondents failed to address their grievance, they have come before this Court seeking the relief. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ranjeet Suryakant Mohite (Dr) v. Union of India,2014(6) Mh.LJ 395. and submits that the High Court of Bombay had issued a direction to the respondents not to compel any individual to declare or specify his religion in any form or any declaration and by virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, every individual has right to claim that he does not belong to any religion and that he does not practice or profess any religion. He submits that the Bombay High Court while dealing with the said Writ Petition had considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay,AIR 1954 Supreme Court 388. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India,AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1. Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of A.P.,(1966) 8 SCC 705. and Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta,(2004) 12 SCC 770. and allowed the Writ Petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief and a direction to the respondents not to insist to disclose the caste.

(3.) On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed by the Assistant Solicitor General. It is stated that births and deaths are registered under the provisions of a Central Act namely 'Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969' (for short, 'RBD Act') and corresponding State Rules made thereunder. As the subject of birth and death registration comes under the concurrent list of the Constitution, implementation of the provisions of RBD Act is on the State Governments for which Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths has been declared as Chief Executive Authority in the State/ UT and at central level, the Registrar General, India only coordinates and unifies the activities of the Chief Registrars of Births and Deaths in the matter of registration of births and deaths. It is stated that Registration of Births and Deaths is mandatory with the enactment of Registration of Births and Deaths Act. To carry out the provisions of the Act, the Office of Registrar General, India has framed Model Registration of Birth and Deaths Rules, 1999 and circulated to all the States in order to facilitate the State Governments for framing their own Rules. Consequently, on the basis of the Model Rules, State Governments framed their own State Rules and forms with the prior approval of Central Government. The information on religion under item 'Religion of the family' with options as 'Hindu', 'Muslim', 'Christian' and 'any other religion' is collected under statistical part of the reporting form and used for statistical purpose only. Hence, the same is not reflected in the birth and death certificate. The specific forms for reporting the birth and death events are prescribed by the respective State Governments. Hence, it relates to Respondents 4 and 5 and State Government of Telangana through the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths. It is submitted that there are no such column even in the census enumeration also. It is stated that there are two separate questions in census to record 1) name of religion of the person and (ii) whether the person is Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) or not a SC/ST and if the person belongs to SC or ST, then to write the name of caste or tribe. The census enumerators are instructed to record the religion of each member of the household as reported by the respondent. If no religion is reported by any person, then enumerator will record accordingly. Likewise a person can be categorized as SC or ST or non-SC/ST in census as reported by the respondent. It is submitted that as far as inclusion of option of 'no religion' in the statistical part of the birth reporting form is concerned, it is to be clarified by the State Governments through Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths who is the Chief Executive Authority for execution of the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act and the Rules made there under. The form of reporting forms and certificates of birth and death are prescribed by the respective State Governments under the Act. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners can only be considered by the State Government.