‘CBSE can't have records at odds with passport'
'A citizen of the country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public documents that pertain to them,' a division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed in its judgment on June 4.
The court noted that both the matriculation certificate and passport are regarded as 'an unassailable and valid proof of date of birth,' and reiterated that CBSE, as a record-keeper, holds a position of significant public importance. The ruling came while hearing an appeal filed by CBSE challenging a single judge's decision that allowed a correction of the date of birth in the case of one Prema Evelyn D Cruz. She had sought an amendment in her All India Secondary School Examination certificate based on her official birth certificate issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation.
CBSE argued the request was barred by limitation under its Bye-laws and Weeding Out Rules, 1998, as documents older than ten years may be destroyed. It also claimed relevant records were unavailable.
However, Cruz contended that procedural constraints or document destruction should not prevent CBSE from correcting errors based on valid public documents. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the High Court noted that official birth certificates carry a statutory presumption of correctness and found 'no cogent reason' for CBSE to disregard hers.
'If the CBSE record is at variance with the Passport, it could lead to considerable doubt... for employment, immigration or any other purpose,' the Bench observed, upholding the single judge's ruling and dismissing CBSE's appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
30 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi HC refuses to accept Saket Gokhale's apology
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (July 8, 2025) refused to accept the written apology of TMC MP Saket Gokhale in a case over his alleged defamatory posts on social media against former diplomat Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri. The court said there was a difference in the two apologies'— the one directed to be published by the single Judge Bench of the court and the one filed by Mr. Gokhale. The court was dealing with Mr. Gokhale's appeal against a single Judge's July 1, 2024 verdict restraining the TMC leader from publishing further on social media or any online platform against Ms. Puri. The single Judge also directed him to apologise to her and pay ₹50 lakh in damages. The court said the contents of his affidavit couldn't be taken on record while asking Mr. Gokhale's counsel to withdraw the apology and file a fresh one. It would hear the case again on July 22. Senior advocate Amit Sibal, representing Mr. Gokhale, submitted his client filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology beside publishing a public apology on his X handle in compliance with the previous directions. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Ms. Puri, opposed the submission and raised questions over Mr. Gokhale's conduct before the single judge in the contempt proceedings. Mr. Gokhale had previously assured of publishing the apology after the court refused to allow him to publish a conditional one. Ms. Puri had filed the defamation suit before the court in response to tweets made by Mr. Gokhale in June 2021 making reckless and false allegations about her financial affairs in the context of an apartment that she owned in Geneva. Mr. Gokhale had in the series of post questioned how Ms. Puri could have bought a house for 1.6 million Swiss Franc in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2006 with her then income. Ms. Puri's said these posts tarnished her goodwill and reputation. In the July 1, 2024, aside from directing publication of an apology and payment of ₹50 lakh as damages, the court restrained Mr. Gokhale from publishing any more content on any social media or electronic platform concerning his imputation against Ms. Puri. The court noted these allegations were made without verification and had tarnished her reputation.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Politicians believe they are kings': HC slams TN police over closing complaints against Ponmudi
Political leaders wrongly believe they are the kings who can do no wrong, the Madras high court remarked on Tuesday as it criticised former Tamil Nadu minister K Ponmudi for 'misusing' free speech and questioned the state police's decision to close over 120 complaints against the DMK leader for his alleged vulgar comments about women, and Hindu sects Shaivites and Vaishnavites. The HC uestioned the state police's decision to close over 120 complaints against the DMK leader for his alleged vulgar comments about women, and Hindu sects Shaivites and Vaishnavites. (File photo) A single bench of justice P Velmurugan reminded Ponmudi, who had to resign from the cabinet on April 27 following the outrage over his remarks, that politicians were not above the law. The court also decided to keep pending its suo motu proceedings against the leader. 'Nowadays, all politicians, all persons making public speeches think Article 19 gives them absolute only sky is the limit. Court cannot simply be a silent spectator. There are reasonable restrictions. There are several sects, religious (public figures) should think about it, when they are in public life,' the judge remarked. '…A strong message should go. So many things are being said, as if they (politicians) are the kings of this country. Whatever they say, they think they can do no wrong. The Court cannot watch these things silently,' the judge added. Justice Velmurugan made the observations after advocate general PS Raman, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, told the court that the state police had examined over 120 complaints registered against Ponmudi following his comments. The police concluded that the former minister had not committed any offence but had merely 'repeated something that had been said decades ago.' Therefore, the police had decided to 'close all complaints' against Ponmudi in the case, Raman told the court. During an event on April 8 this year, Ponmudi had recited a joke linking the religious forehead markings of Shaivites and Vaishnavites to sexual positions, provoking widespread outrage. The joke also referenced a sex worker, drawing further condemnation. Soon after, justice N Anand Venkatesh of the high court initiated suo motu proceedings and directed the police to register an FIR against Ponmudi. Justice Venkatesh had noted that Ponmudi's comments were 'prima facie hate speech, derogatory to women, and offensive to religious communities.' On Tuesday, Justice Velmurugan questioned the legality of the closure of complaints at the stage of preliminary inquiry, saying police cannot decide whether the speech amounts to hate speech 'without a formal investigation.' The judge cautioned the police that if all the original complainants in the case were not informed about the closure of their cases, the court will act strictly against the state. 'We will keep the suo motu case pending. You will have to get acknowledgements from the complainants for closing their complaints. If any person comes and says they have not been served with notice before closing, this court will come down heavily,' justice Velmurugan said, listing the matter for further hearing on August 1. Ponmudi, who was removed by the DMK as the party deputy general secretary following his remarks and later dropped from the cabinet, had previously admitted to making the remarks but maintained he had just narrated a widely known anecdote. Justice Venkatesh, however, remarked at the time: 'These comments spew venom on Hindu sects and demean the moral worth of women,' adding that they may attract multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Where did cops get power to close 121 plaints against Ponmudy?
Chennai: From where did the Tamil Nadu police draw power to close all 112 complaints against former DMK minister K Ponmudy for his alleged derogatory statements against women, Shaivites, and Vaishnavites, asked Madras high court on Tuesday. In response, advocate general P S Raman submitted that all the cases were closed after following due process by conducting a preliminary inquiry under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It was concluded that the speech did not amount to hate speech; therefore, the complaints were closed, the AG added. The remedy available to the complainants does not end here. Under BNSS, they have an option to appeal to the inspector general and the DGP if they are not satisfied with the findings of the investigating officer, AG said. In response to the AG's claim that the former minister was just quoting an incident that occurred 60 years ago, Justice P Velmurugan said, "Can you (TN police) say that only the original speaker can be punished and not the subsequent speaker who made the same speech?" You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai "They (politicians) cannot act like kings; the court cannot tolerate such behaviour. They must respect the public who are the victims," the judge said. "Let them (complainants) exhaust their remedies; meanwhile, we (court) will keep the contempt petition pending. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like One plan. Total peace of mind. ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo We will watch vigilantly," Justice Velmurugan said. People in public life must understand that this country is for all and not for a particular class of citizens, he added. Asserting that he will keep the suo motu contempt open, Justice Velmurugan directed the state police to ensure that all the complainants are served with the closure notice. "If anyone comes to the court alleging that they have not been served with the closure notice, the court will be constrained to take serious action," the judge said and adjourned the hearing to Aug 1.
