Name In Board Examination Certificate Can Be Changed Only After Obtaining Decree From Civil Court: Allahabad High Court

The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that

“Acquiring a new name by choice is covered by Chapter-VI of the Act in the sense that a person seeking to acquire a new name, may obtain a decree of declaration from the civil court to the effect that, henceforth, he would be known as a person by his newly acquired name. In such event, the date of decree would be relevant and would operate from the said date, prior whereto, the plaintiff seeking declaration would be known by his previous name.”

The Court held that changing the name in Board certificates by way of changes in Aadhar and PAN card would become an endless process if the person keeps on changing the name again and again. The Court clarified that the validity of the public document such as Aadhar and PAN card was not been commented upon in the judgment.

Case Background

Petitioner-respondent was earlier named “Shahnawaz” which was mentioned in all High School and Intermediate Mark Sheets. In 2020, based on newly issued Aadhar Card and PAN Card in the name of “Md. Sameer Rao” and a Gazetted Notification, petitioner approached the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education for change of name in the school certificates.

Relying on Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Board rejected the application as being time-barred since it was moved after 3 years of passing the examinations. Petitioner challenged the rejection order before the writ court.

Single Judge allowed the petitioner-respondent to change his “Shahnawaz” to “Md Sameer Rao” and directed issuance of fresh High School certificate and other public documents with changed name. it was held that right to choose a name is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the restrictions placed by the Regulations are unreasonable. This order was challenged by the State Government in Special Appeal.

High Court Verdict

In Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the wrongly recorded names of parents in the school certificate, held that each request for change of name is different and must be seen according to facts of the case. It was held that if the bye-laws permit change of name then it must be done but if the bye-laws do not permit such change, the Court must “circumspect” before issuing directions and must not comment on the validity of the bye laws.

The Apex Court further laid down two conditions where the change of name is sought: firstly, where it is sought based on public documents like Aadhar, etc. to make them consistent, and secondly, where person acquires a new name later, where public documents are not required as proof.

“However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees,” held the Apex Court.

The Court noted that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 empowers a person to seek declaration of status or right including legal character of any person. It held that the person acquiring a new name can seek declaration from a civil court for the same. It further held that such declaration obtained is not binding parties to the suit as provided under Section 35 of the Act, but will be binding on all government departments and public at large.

The Court also relied on Section 41 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which provides that a judgment conferring or taking away a legal character of a person is a conclusive proof of the legal character acquired or lost by a person when such decree or judgment came into operation.

Reliance was placed on Pooja Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, where Justice Shailendra held that decree of court is must for acquiring a new name by choice.

Holding that a decree of Civil Court was necessary for name change, the Court held that the declaration in the Gazetted Notification was not by the Government but by the petitioner himself.

“Words “it is certified that I have complied with other legal requirements in this connection” written at the end of the notice, do not amount to a certificate issued by Government of India, rather it is the certification made by the candidate himself that he has complied with other legal requirements. What are those 'legal requirements' is nowhere mentioned in the gazette, rather, when read with the notice quoted above, it would mean that the Government of India itself has made a disclaimer saving itself from any legal responsibility/ liability/ consequences or any other misrepresentation etc, which may occur pursuant to notifying a new name in the gazette.”

Differentiating between a civil court decree and a Gazetted Notification, the Court held that while the former is a formal court order which is of a binding nature whereas, the latter is a public notice and not of a binding nature.

Lastly, the Court held that the Single Judge, in writ jurisdiction, did not have the jurisdiction to strike down Regulation 40(c) as unconstitutional as the power to deal with cases challenging vires of the State or Central Legislation lies only with a Division Bench.

Accordingly, the order of the Single Judge was set aside and the writ petition seeking direction for change in name was dismissed.

Case Title: State of U.P. and 2 others v. Md. Sameer Rao and 3 others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 459 of 2023]

Click Here To Read/Download The Order