Can the “Section 13” Remark on a Birth Certificate Be Removed?
What is the “Section 13” remark?
Some birth certificates issued in Peninsular Malaysia, where the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 applies, carry a note that the birth was registered under section 13 of that Act. Section 13 covers a child whose parents were not married to each other at the birth (the Act’s word is “illegitimate”). The father’s name is entered only if the mother and the man acknowledging himself as father ask jointly, and he signs the register with her.
The Federal Court has described the note as an explicit acknowledgment that the registration was for such a child. Many families want it gone. The law sets out no single procedure for deleting it, but it does offer several routes, each with conditions.
Can a court order the note removed?
This was tested in Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara & Ors v. Seorang Kanak-kanak & Ors; Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Johor (Intervener) [2020] 4 CLJ 731. A Muslim couple’s son was born less than six months after their marriage, and his certificate read “Permohonan Seksyen 13”. The Court of Appeal ordered the note removed, reasoning that section 13 sets out a procedure but does not require the note on the certificate.
The Federal Court, by four judges to three, set that order aside. The majority held that the note truly reflects how the birth was registered, so it is not discriminatory. One dissenting judge saw no reason to show a child’s status to everyone who sees the certificate. That is the minority view; the majority decision stands.
Does the parents’ later marriage help?
For families who are not Muslim, this is the route the law expressly provides. Under section 4 of the Legitimacy Act 1961, if the parents later marry in a recognised way and the father is domiciled in Malaysia, the child becomes legitimate from the date of the marriage. Section 5 allows a petition to the High Court for a declaration of legitimacy.
Section 17 of the 1957 Act then lets the Registrar General authorise the birth of a legitimated person to be registered afresh. Normally both parents must give the information, but not where the father’s name was already entered under section 13 or a court has established paternity. No fee is charged if the information is given within three months of the marriage; after that, the Registrar General may require the parents to come forward.
The cases show this route in use. In Madhuvita Janjara Augustin v. Augustin Lourdsamy & Ors [2018] 4 CLJ 758, the High Court allowed, without objection, a prayer for the child’s birth to be registered again as that of a legitimate person. The authorities agreed to issue a new certificate under section 17. Neither the Act nor these decisions, however, say what the new certificate looks like or confirm that the section 13 note disappears.
Two limits apply. First, legitimation does not confer citizenship. In CTEB & Anor v. Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 6 CLJ 471, a Federal Court majority held that a later marriage does not change a child’s status at birth for that purpose. Second, the Federal Court noted in the 2020 case that the Legitimacy Act does not apply to Muslims.
What about adoption?
Section 3(3) of the Adoption Act 1952 allows a child’s own mother or father to adopt, alone or with a spouse. Under section 25A, the adoption order directs that no word such as “adopted” appear on a new Certificate of Birth, which replaces the old one for all purposes. The original entry in the register of births is marked “adopted”, and the records linking the two are not open to public search.
Adoption has its own hurdles. Each parent must consent unless the court dispenses with consent. In Arun Muthiah & Satu Lagi lwn. Pegawai Kebajikan Masyarakat [2024] 2 SMC 117, a Sessions Court refused a father’s request to dispense with the consent of the child’s mother, a foreign national, as efforts to trace her through her embassy had not been made.
The Court of Appeal in Tan Kar Chai & Anor v. Pendaftar Besar Kelahiran Dan Kematian, Malaysia & Ors [2026] 6 CLJ 207 held that adoption cannot confer citizenship, even indirectly. The Adoption Act also does not apply to Muslims.
Can the record simply be corrected?
Section 27(3) of the 1957 Act allows an error of fact or substance to be corrected on a statutory declaration. In Leow Fook Keong v. Pendaftar Besar Bagi Kelahiran Dan Kematian Malaysia, Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, Malaysia & Anor [2022] 1 CLJ 23, the Federal Court ordered a father’s name added after a court declared his paternity.
The court stressed, however, that corrections are made by a new entry without altering the original. Nothing in that decision suggests the route can erase a section 13 registration.
What should you keep in mind?
The note records how the birth was registered, and the Federal Court majority has upheld it as accurate.
For families who are not Muslim, a later marriage followed by legitimation and fresh registration is the route the law designs for a change of status. Timing matters: section 17 charges no fee if the information is given within three months of the marriage. One Sessions Court read the Legitimacy Act as now requiring a marriage registered under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.
Adoption by a parent brings a replacement certificate, but it needs consents and a court order.
None of these routes changes citizenship, and neither the Legitimacy Act nor the Adoption Act applies to Muslims.
Conclusion
The law offers no way to have the “Section 13” remark simply deleted on request, and a court challenge on discrimination grounds failed at the Federal Court. Instead, legitimation followed by fresh registration, or adoption, can lead to a new record, though the law does not spell out what the new certificate shows. Each route depends on the family’s facts.
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts; for advice on your situation, speak to a lawyer.
This article is written by
Seen Rui Yong
Senior Associate, Low & Partners