Name Change Is Not a Fundamental Right, Subject to Government Policies and Regulations: Allahabad HC

In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court ruled that changing one’s name is not an absolute fundamental right, overturning a Single Judge Bench’s directive that allowed a petitioner to change his name in educational records. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, held that name changes must adhere to legal formalities, including obtaining a civil court declaration.

The ruling came in Special Appeal No. 459 of 2023 (State of U.P. and 2 others v. Md. Sameer Rao and 3 others), where the State of Uttar Pradesh, the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, and its Regional Secretary challenged a Single Judge’s May 25, 2023 order. The appeal was argued by Advocates Kunal Ravi Singh and Rama Nand Pandey for the State, while the respondent, Md. Sameer Rao, was represented by Shreyas Srivastava.

Background of the Case

The case originated when Md. Sameer Rao, previously known as Shahnawaz, requested the U.P. Board to issue fresh High School and Intermediate Certificates reflecting his new name. He had appeared for the 2013 and 2015 board examinations under his old name and later sought the change based on:

1. A gazette notification published in 2020,
2. A new Aadhaar card and PAN card reflecting his new name.

However, his request was rejected on December 24, 2020 by the Board’s Regional Secretary, citing Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which prohibits name changes after three years from issuing the certificate.

Dissatisfied, Rao approached the Allahabad High Court’s Single Judge Bench, which allowed his petition and directed the Board to issue fresh certificates and ensure the rectification of all official documents, including Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Passport. The State challenged this ruling, leading to the present appeal.

Key Legal Issues

The appeal raised crucial legal questions:

1. Is changing one’s name a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution?
2. Can a court “read down” statutory regulations that impose time limits on name changes?
3. Does a gazette notification alone suffice for a name change in official records?
4. Should educational boards be compelled to alter records years after issuance?

Arguments by the State (Appellants)

Advocate Rama Nand Pandey, representing the State, argued that:

• Fundamental rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions.
• Regulation 7 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, places a valid three-year limit on name changes.
• The Single Judge Bench overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing directions to the government and amending statutory regulations through judicial review.
• The Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (2021) 7 SCC 535 had held that name changes must be supported by a civil court declaration and a gazette notification alone is insufficient.

Arguments by the Respondent (Md. Sameer Rao)

Advocate Shreyas Srivastava, appearing for Rao, countered that:

• The right to identity and personal autonomy includes the right to change one’s name.
• The Board’s refusal violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.
• The gazette notification and new identity documents were sufficient proof of the name change.
• The Single Judge’s decision correctly interpreted the law to prevent unnecessary restrictions on personal rights.

High Court’s Decision and Observations

The Division Bench rejected the Single Judge’s order and upheld the Board’s authority to refuse name changes after the prescribed period. The court held that:

1. “Name change is not an unrestricted fundamental right under Article 21.”
2. The Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act are valid and binding, and the three-year time limit cannot be ignored.
3. A gazette notification alone does not create a legal right to a name change in educational records. Prior permission from a civil court is mandatory.
4. The Single Judge erred in “reading down” Regulation 40(c) to allow name changes at any time. Courts cannot modify statutory provisions unless they are unconstitutional.
5. Judicial overreach in policy matters is impermissible. Directing the State and Union Governments to create a framework for name changes in public documents exceeded judicial review limits.

READ ALSO  Patta Can’t Be Cancelled After Expiry of a Given Period Under S 198 of UPZALR Act: Allahabad HC