MP High Court Sets Aside Cancellation Of Viral Kumbh Girl's Birth Certificate, Says She Was Never Heard

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has set aside a municipal order that cancelled the birth certificate of a young woman who rose to fame after going viral at the Maha Kumbh 2025, holding that she was never heard before her date of birth was changed from 2008 to 2009.

Justice Gajendra Singh, in an order delivered on September 30, ruled that the Chief Municipal Officer, Maheshwar, violated the principle of audi alteram partem by informing only her father about the correction. The authority must now decide the father's application afresh after an "effective hearing" to her.

The petitioner, identified in the order only as 'M', had travelled to Prayagraj with her family to earn a livelihood during the Mela. There, the Court noted, she "transitioned from a street vendor into a national celebrity and an aspiring bollywood actress."

Her parents then applied for a birth certificate, supported by her mother's affidavit, stating her date of birth as January 1, 2008. The certificate was issued on June 5, 2025. On that basis she turned 18 on January 1, 2026, and married her co-petitioner, a co-star from a Malayalam film, on March 11, 2026.

Her father, respondent no. 3, then approached the Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Maheshwar, claiming she was born at the hospital. The registrar cancelled the earlier entry and recorded her date of birth as December 30, 2009, which would make her a minor at the time of marriage.

An FIR followed on March 25, 2026 at Police Station Maheshwar, Khargone, against her husband, initially under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 363 of IPC) and later with other BNS provisions, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Kerala High Court had granted the petitioners interim protection from arrest.

Before the High Court, the petitioners sought restoration of the certificate and an independent probe into alleged forgery. Senior Advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha, with advocate Jerry Lopez, argued that her Aadhaar, PAN and voter card all carried the 2008 date, and that the age dispute surfaced only after her marriage.

Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahajan, with advocate Kamlesh Manwani, appeared for the father. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, with Additional Advocate General Sonal Gupta, Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj Saxena and Government Advocate Aditya Garg, represented the State. They raised eight preliminary objections, including that she is a minor, that forgery involves disputed facts, and that an alternative remedy exists.

The Court noted that her Aadhaar was issued on May 28, 2015 with the 2008 date, followed by a PAN and a voter card. The correction, it observed, pushes her majority back by nearly two years, affecting voting rights, bank accounts and contracts. Her choice of marriage, it said, is "exposed to risk including the criminal prosecution of her partner."

The Court held that "any restraint, even for a temporary period of two years deprives the petitioner no.1 from the right to life and personal liberty" under Article 21.

The order was pointed about the father's timing, observing that he "moved earth and heaven only after Petitioner No.1 exercised her right of personal choice and chose to marry Petitioner No.2." It also noted that nothing showed she had ever attended school, so no school record exists to settle her actual date of birth.

On the notice requirement, the Court said "intimation only to the father does not satisfy the requirement of 'audi alteram partem'." It added that an alternative remedy under Section 25A of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is no bar where natural justice is violated.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the Chief Municipal Officer's order dated March 31, 2026 and disposed of the petition.

Importantly, the ruling does not decide her actual age, the validity of her marriage or the forgery allegations. Those questions remain open, pending the authority's fresh hearing.

Case Title: 'M' and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 

Date of Order: September 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh