The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday set aside a municipal order that had cancelled the birth certificate of Monalisa Bhonsle, who rose to fame at the 2025 Prayagraj Mahakumbh. The cancellation had meant that she was considered a minor at the time of her inter-faith marriage in March 2026, and consequently criminal cases were registered against her husband. The court held that she was never heard before the record was changed.“It is, thus, trite that any action prejudicial to a citizen, which is taken by the State or public authority without affording him an opportunity of being heard, would be unfair and arbitrary,” Justice Gajendra Singh said.The Indore bench held that the order passed by the Chief Municipal Officer, Maheshwar, in Khargone district “is hereby set aside”. The bench directed the officer to decide her father’s application afresh “after affording the opportunity of effective hearing to the Petitioner No. 1 as per the law”.Initially, her birth had been registered in June 2025 as January 1, 2008, at home, on her parents’ application. However, after the wedding, her father told the Block Medical Officer at Maheshwar’s Community Health Centre that she was actually born there on December 30, 2009. The hospital certificate went to the municipal registrar, who cancelled the 2025 entry and recorded the new date. Court records show that the intimation went only to her father, not to her. While the court did not say which date of birth is correct, it noted that “no school record appears to be available which could conveniently resolve the controversy regarding her actual date of birth”. That question has to be determined afresh by the registrar.Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, who appeared for the petitioner, said that the ruling is a broader vindication. “Conversion was never an issue. They cancelled her birth certificate and issued a false one to declare her a minor and then create a case of kidnapping…,” he said.Additional Solicitor General S V Raju had appeared for the state. The father, also represented by a Senior Advocate and the state, argued that the Madhya Pradesh Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2024, require intimation only to the person who gave the birth information, here the father. The court rejected this, saying, “when Petitioner No. 1 is the aggrieved, then intimation only to the father does not satisfy the requirement of ‘audi alteram partem’.”The court noted that the 2025 certificate rested on the mother’s affidavit of May 30, 2025. It also noted that an Aadhaar card issued on May 28, 2015, already recorded January 1, 2008, and that a PAN was allotted on January 10, 2026.