The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a municipal order cancelling the birth certificate of Monalisa Bhonsle, who came into public attention during the 2025 Prayagraj Mahakumbh, holding that the change in her birth record was made without giving her an opportunity of hearing.
Justice Gajendra Singh of the Indore Bench directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Maheshwar, in Khargone district to reconsider the matter afresh after providing Bhonsle an effective hearing in accordance with law.
The dispute over her date of birth had assumed significance after her inter-faith marriage in March 2026. Following the cancellation of the earlier birth entry and registration of a later date of birth, she was treated as a minor at the time of the marriage, leading to criminal cases against her husband.
No Hearing Before Birth Record Was Changed
Bhonsle’s birth was initially registered in June 2025 on an application by her parents, with January 1, 2008 recorded as her date of birth and the place of birth shown as home.
After her marriage, however, her father informed the Block Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre in Maheshwar that she had actually been born at the health centre on December 30, 2009.
A certificate from the hospital was subsequently forwarded to the municipal registrar. The earlier entry was cancelled and the new date of birth was recorded. According to the court record, information regarding the change was sent to Bhonsle’s father but not to Bhonsle herself.
The High Court held that an action adversely affecting a citizen cannot be taken by the State or a public authority without giving the affected person an opportunity to be heard, as such action would be unfair and arbitrary.
The court therefore set aside the Chief Municipal Officer’s order and directed a fresh decision on the father’s application after hearing Bhonsle.
Court Does Not Decide Correct Date Of Birth
The High Court did not determine which of the two disputed dates of birth was correct. It said that the issue would have to be reconsidered by the registrar.
The court also noted that there appeared to be no school record available which could conveniently settle the controversy over Bhonsle’s actual date of birth.
The 2025 birth registration had been based on an affidavit submitted by her mother on May 30, 2025. The court further recorded that an Aadhaar card issued on May 28, 2015 already mentioned January 1, 2008 as her date of birth, while a PAN had been allotted to her on January 10, 2026.
State’s Objection Rejected
Bhonsle’s father, who was represented by a Senior Advocate and supported by the State, argued that under the Madhya Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2024, intimation was required to be given only to the person who had supplied the information relating to the birth, which in this case was the father.
The court rejected the contention, holding that since Bhonsle herself was the person aggrieved by the change, informing only her father did not satisfy the principle of audi alteram partem, which requires an affected person to be heard before an adverse decision is taken.
Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General S V Raju represented the State.
Tankha said the decision had wider significance and maintained that conversion was never the issue. According to him, the grievance was that Bhonsle’s birth certificate had been cancelled and another issued showing her as a minor, following which a kidnapping case was created.
