Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: In the present petition, the petitioner challenged the order issued by Respondent 3 (‘Board’), rejecting his request to change his name in the educational certificates and sought a direction upon the respondents to make the requested change. A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., while observing that the right to change the name was an aspect of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, asked the Board to re-consider the petitioner’s request to alter his name in in his educational qualification certificates.
Background:
The petitioner’s original name was recorded in his educational qualification certificates including High School and intermediate certificates, but he was seriously aggrieved of the said name as his friends used to make fun of it. He submitted that he could not change his name during his childhood because of his parents’ unwillingness, and therefore, after his graduation, he started the process to change it from Raj Wali to Mohd. Hassan. He applied to the Department of Publication, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India for the change and submitted all the relevant documents, whereafter a Notification dated 15-04-2023 came to be published in the Gazette of India in which it was declared that the petitioner had changed his name. After the publication, his name was also changed in other documents including Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID Card, Driving Licence, Passport and Domicile Certificate.
The petitioner then applied to the Board for a change in his name, but the Board, vide its order dated 24-12-2024, rejected the petitioner’s case. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that it was violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. He contended that the Board’s action was arbitrary and irrational and was not sustainable in law.
However, the Board submitted that the petitioner had passed the matriculation examination from the Board in 2016 and was provided the qualification certificate carrying his original name. The same particulars were shown in his 12th class qualification certificate, but the petitioner did not approach the Board at that time. The Board further submitted that the Correction Committee of the Board, after due consideration, had found that the petitioner’s case was over and above the mandate of the Committee and that the case did not fall in any of the parameters laid down under the Regulations of the Board. Additionally, the petitioner was estopped from seeking a direction for correction of his recorded name as the same was not permissible.
Issue: Whether the petitioner was entitled to get his name changed and whether the Board was obliged to effect the change of name in the certificates issued by it in favour of the petitioner.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court relied on Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, (2021) 7 SCC 535, wherein the Supreme Court held that “an individual must be in complete control of her name and law must enable her to retain as well as to exercise such control freely ‘for all times’. An individual might self-identify oneself with any title or epithet at any point of time, but the change of identity would not be regarded as formally or legally complete until and unless the State and its agencies took note thereof in their records”.
The Court followed Kabir Jaiswal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine All 1488, where it was held that the right to change the name was a facet of fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the same could not be denied. The Court also referred to Kashish Gupta v. Central Board of Secondary Education, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1590, wherein it was observed that “subject to the limited grounds of control and regulation of fraudulent or criminal activities or other valid causes, a bona fide claim for change of name in the records maintained by the Authorities ought to be allowed without hesitation”.
The Court, keeping in mind the above analysis, opined that it was clear that the right to change the name was a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and it could safely be stated that the right to change the name was a protected right and in normal circumstances, a person could not be denied this right on technical issues. The Court noted that the Board relied on two Notifications dated 06-02-1995 and 16-02-2009 which mandated that a candidate had to approach the Board within a maximum period of three years from the date of issuance of certificate for seeking correction in its particulars but the petitioner had approached the Board after seven years of issuance of the matriculate certificate.
The Court perused the Notification and concluded that only two types of changes were permissible, one was the correction of mistakes in existing particulars which could be permitted if it was a transcriptional or typographical error, and the second was the change in registered particulars, other than correction of typographical errors, which would include change in name, parentage, date of birth, surname etc. However, these changes were permissible only in case it was warranted. The Court, while interpreting the Notification in a manner so that it did not infringe the fundamental rights, opined that the Correction Committee of the Board had the power to permit change in the name, parentage or other registered particulars of an individual in deserving case. Thus, the ground that request for change the petitioner’s name was beyond the mandate of the Correction Committee was not legally sustainable.
For the three-year limitation pleaded by the Board for the change, the Court noted that there was a clear distinction between change in particulars and correction of particulars, and therefore, observed that the petitioner was seeking change in registered particulars and not their correction, and hence, the limitation period of three years was not applicable in his case.
Regarding the question whether the Board was obliged to make the change based on the documents produced, the Court relied on Jigya Yadav (supra), and held that while considering the petitioner’s request for effecting the change in his name registered in the certificates issued by the Board, the Correction Committee of the Board had to take into consideration the statutory documents that were placed on record by the petitioner, but in the present case, the committee did not accord any consideration to these documents. The Court opined that Jigya Yadav (supra) would be relied on to decide the manner in which the change in the name of an individual was to be affected in the certificates issued by the Education Board.
Consequently, the Court, while allowing the writ petition, quashed the Board’s order rejecting the petitioner’s request for the change in the name, and directed the respondents to consider his request afresh in light of the guidelines laid by the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (supra) and the discussions held hereinabove. The Court directed that if the petitioner’s request was accepted, the Board would, while issuing fresh certificates in his favour, reflect name of the petitioner as Raj Wali alias Mohd. Hassan.
[Mohd. Hassan v. State (UT of J&K), 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 937, decided on 11-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Abid Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: B.S. Bali, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
