Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth directed the respondent municipal corporation to issue a revised birth certificate, allowing a minor to change her surname from that of her biological father to that of her mother. The Court held that the welfare of the child was of paramount consideration and noted that the change of surname was consistent with the petitioner’s lived identity and emotional well-being. Stating the importance of consistency in official records and acknowledging that statutory frameworks must be applied in the best interest of the child, the Court ordered the municipal authorities to complete the change within four weeks of receiving the order.

The petitioner, a minor girl aged 14, initiated the writ petition through her mother and natural guardian, challenging the rejection of her application dated February 17, 2025, seeking a change of surname in her birth certificate. Her application had been declined via a communication dated May 5, 2025, issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Chandernagore Municipal Corporation. The rejection was based on the assertion that change of surname was not permissible solely on account of the change in the marital status of the parents.

Also Read: Res Judicata Requires Full Trial If Fraud And Collusion Are Alleged | Supreme Court Says Objection Cannot Be Decided At Threshold Under Order VII Rule 11

The petitioner was born on April 14, 2011, to Mr. Prasenjit Chatterjee and Ms. Kasturi Chatterjee during the subsistence of their marriage. The birth was duly registered, and a certificate was issued reflecting the surname 'Chatterjee'. Following marital discord, the petitioner began residing with her mother at her maternal grandparents' residence. The marriage was legally dissolved by a decree of divorce dated May 13, 2015.

After the dissolution, both the petitioner and her mother adopted the surname 'Bhattacharya'. This surname was reflected in several official records, including the petitioner’s AADHAR card and passport. However, inconsistencies arose due to the continued presence of the surname 'Chatterjee' in certain documents such as her birth certificate and school records.

The petitioner submitted the application for correction, stating her desire not to retain her father's surname for personal and emotional reasons. The application sought a uniform record of identity across all official documents. Upon rejection of this request by the Corporation, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Initially, the father was not impleaded as a party. The Court directed the petitioner to include him, recognizing his relevance in the matter. Accordingly, Mr. Prasenjit Chatterjee was made a respondent, and service of notice was effected both by Speed Post and through publication in two newspapers—'The Times of India' and 'Ei Samay'.

On July 4, 2025, service was considered complete upon submission of publication records. No appearance or response from the father was recorded in the judgment.

During the hearing, the respondent Corporation relied on Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and a guideline dated December 29, 2014, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to their submission, once a child’s name is entered in the birth certificate, no alteration could be permitted on the ground of change in marital status of parents.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 15 does not impose an absolute bar on such corrections. Counsel referred to a precedent—WPA 88 of 2023 (Arpita Chowdhary v. Nabadwip Municipality & Anr.)—where a similar relief was granted. The petitioner stated that the request for surname change was not intended to affect the legal rights or obligations of the biological father but to align the petitioner’s official records with her lived identity and emotional needs.

The documents placed on record supported the claim that the petitioner’s surname had already been altered in other identification documents. The petitioner cited potential administrative difficulties arising from the inconsistency and stated that uniformity in documents was essential for both procedural convenience and personal dignity.

The Court examined the records and observed that the petitioner is a minor girl aged 14, residing with her mother and studying in Class IX. The Court noted that the marriage between the petitioner’s biological parents had been dissolved by decree and that the petitioner and her mother had since adopted the surname 'Bhattacharya'.

The judgment recorded: "The petitioner’s surname has already been updated in various official documents such as AADHAR card, passport and other documents. However, in certain other records, including her school record and her birth certificate, her earlier surname ‘Chatterjee’ continues to appear, resulting in inconsistency and causing potential administrative difficulties."

Addressing the emotional and identity-related concerns of the petitioner, the Court stated: "She does not wish to retain or be identified by the surname of her biological father owing to personal and emotional reasons." It further stated: "She seeks to have her identity consistently recorded in all official documents with the surname ‘Bhattacharya’, which she has been using ever since the decree of divorce, and which is also the surname of her mother with whom she has been permanently residing."

The Court referenced its earlier decision in WPA 88 of 2023, noting the legal permissibility and practical necessity of allowing such corrections. It quoted: "Birth certificate of an individual is a very important document in life. The same is an evidence of one’s birth and lineage. It also acts as a proof of one’s age, identity and citizenship. Various uncomfortable questions may arise in one’s mind when the individual becomes mature and notices that the name of a different person is recorded as his/her father. The same may lead to further complications in future and may also result in breakdown of relationships."

Further, the Court acknowledged: "Law has to be dynamic and ought to evolve to tackle such issues. One cannot be hyper technical while dealing with personal issues with hardly any public law element involved."

In response to the rigid interpretation of Section 15 by the Corporation, the Court noted: "It is not that there is absolute total bar to rectify errors. With the change in circumstances, the entry in respect of the father of the minor child has to be taken as improper and liable to be rectified and the records are to be corrected."

The Court observed that such decisions must prioritize the child’s best interest: "Every individual has the right to live with dignity and honour." It reiterated that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration in such matters and affirmed the Court’s power to allow changes where the law otherwise permits corrections.

Also Read: Furlough And Parole Can Be Granted Even During Supreme Court Appeal | Delhi High Court Strikes Down Bar Under Rule 1224 As Arbitrary And Unconstitutional

The Court directed the respondent Corporation to issue a fresh birth certificate in respect of the petitioner. It recorded:

"Accordingly, the respondent corporation is directed to issue a fresh birth certificate in respect of the petitioner by substituting her surname from ‘Chatterjee’ to ‘Bhattacharya’ and by recording her name in conformity with the identity adopted post the decree of divorce of her parents. The said action shall be completed by the respondent corporation positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order."

The Court clarified the legal implications of the change: "It is, however, made clear that such change of surname and the consequential removal of the surname of the biological father from the birth certificate and other official records shall not, in any manner whatsoever, affect the legal status of the biological father as her natural guardian under any law, nor shall it affect or extinguish the petitioner’s legitimate rights if any, including her succession and inheritance rights to the property of her biological father. All such rights shall continue to remain preserved and unaffected by this order, in accordance with law."

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. V.V.V. Sastry, Advocate; Mr. Anirudh Goyal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Suman Basu, Advocate; Mr. Debanjan Bhattacharjee, Advocate; Mr. Samik Chatterjee, Advocate; Mr. S. Mahapatra, Advocate

Case Title: XXX Versus Registrar of Births and Deaths, Chandernagore Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case Number: WPA 11486 of 2025

Bench: Justice Gaurang Kanth