Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the right to adopt or change one’s name is a protected right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court quashed an order of the respondent Board that had rejected the petitioner’s request to change his name in his educational certificates. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the request afresh, in accordance with legal precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, and to ensure that the petitioner’s changed name is reflected in his testimonials.

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by challenging an order dated 24.12.2024 issued by the respondent Board, which had rejected his request for change of name in his educational qualification certificates, including High School and intermediate certificates. The petitioner sought a direction to change his name from Raj Wali to Mohd. Hassan in the said certificates.

Also Read: Housing Recognised as Part of Right to Life Under Article 21 | Supreme Court Directs Centre to Explore Revival Fund for Real Estate Insolvency

The petitioner’s case was that his original name was recorded as Raj Wali in his educational qualification certificates. He submitted that he was aggrieved by the name as his peers often mocked it, but during childhood, he was unable to change it due to lack of parental consent. He completed his education under the said name, and accordingly, his certificates recorded his name as Raj Wali son of Mohd. Yaqub.

After graduation, the petitioner initiated the process to change his name from Raj Wali to Mohd. Hassan. He applied to the Department of Publication, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, fulfilling all required formalities. A notification dated 15.04.2023 was subsequently published in the Gazette of India, declaring that he had changed his name. Thereafter, the name was changed in his other official documents including Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID Card, Driving Licence, Passport, and Domicile Certificate.

On this basis, the petitioner approached the respondent Board with all relevant documents, requesting change of name in his certificates. The Board, however, rejected his case via the impugned order dated 24.12.2024.

The petitioner argued that the rejection violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. He contended that the rejection was arbitrary and contrary to judicial precedents, including Supreme Court judgements.

In its reply, the respondent Board stated that the petitioner had passed matriculation in 2016 and his certificates reflected the name Raj Wali. It contended that the petitioner did not approach the Board until November 2023, more than three years after gaining knowledge of the particulars in his certificates. It was argued that the Correction Committee of the Board had duly considered the matter under its Regulations and found the petitioner’s case beyond its mandate. The Board maintained that the petitioner’s case did not fall within any of the permissible categories under its Regulations. It further contended that the petitioner was estopped from seeking such a direction.

The Court framed the central question: whether the petitioner is entitled to have his name changed and whether the Board is obliged to effect such change in its issued certificates.

The Court cited Jigya Yadav (Minor) through Guardian/Father Hari Singh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors., (2021) 7 SCC 535, where the Supreme Court held that “an individual must have complete control over her name and law must enable her to retain or to exercise such control freely at all times.” The Supreme Court had further observed that “expression of identity is a protected element of freedom of expression under the Constitution.”

The Court recorded that the Allahabad High Court in Kabir Jaiswal Vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2021 All 96 held that “right to change the name is a facet of fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be denied.” Similarly, the Kerala High Court in Kashish Gupta Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors., 2020 SCC Online Ker 1590, stated that “Name is something very personal to an individual. Name is an expression of one's individuality, one's identity and one's uniqueness.” The Delhi High Court in Rayaan Chawla Vs. University of Delhi and Anr., 2020 SCC Online Del 1413, took a similar view.

The Court stated that “right to change the name is a protected right and in normal circumstances, a person cannot be denied this right on technical issues.”

The Court then analysed the Board’s reliance on its notifications, particularly Notification dated 06.02.1995 and Notification dated 16.02.2009. It noted that normally particulars registered with the Board were final. However, the notifications provided scope for changes where warranted, and allowed the Chairman to correct clerical or typographical errors. It recorded: “two types of changes are permissible… correction of mistakes in existing particulars… [and] change in registered particulars… These would include change in name, change in parentage, change in date of birth and change in surname etc.” The Court clarified that “normal rule is that no change in registered particulars is permissible” but recognized that fundamental rights required a liberal interpretation.

The Court observed: “The contention… that beyond three years from date of issue of certificate it cannot entertain request for change of particulars… is misconceived because the limitation of three years… is in respect of request for correction… and not in respect of request for change of registered particulars.”

The Court further cited Jigya Yadav, noting the Supreme Court’s direction that public documents such as Aadhaar, PAN, Passport, and Gazette notifications carry a legal presumption of correctness and must be considered by Boards. It stated: “there is no reason for the CBSE Board to not take notice of the public documents relied upon by the candidate and to record change on that basis in the certificate issued by it.”

The Court noted that in the present case, the petitioner had produced statutory documents reflecting his changed name, yet the Committee had not given them due consideration.

Regarding the manner of effecting changes, the Court again cited Jigya Yadav: “The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry… indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof.” It recorded that in situations involving newly acquired names by choice, requests could be entertained with conditions such as publication in the Gazette, sworn affidavit, surrender of original certificate, and disclaimer by the Board.

Also Read: J&K and Ladakh High Court | Contempt Jurisdiction Limited To Four Corners Of Original Order | “Consequential Benefits” Restricted To Post-Retiral Monetary Relief, Not Promotion

It recorded: “the impugned action of the respondent-Board in rejecting the request of the petitioner for change of name is not sustainable in law and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed.”

“The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for change of name and entry of his changed name in the testimonials issued by the respondent-Board in favour of the petitioner in the light of what has been discussed and held hereinabove and upon considering the material that may be produced by the petitioner.”

“The respondent-Board shall while issuing fresh certificates/mark sheets in favour of the petitioner, reflect name of the petitioner as Raj Wali alias Mohd. Hassan.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Abid Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate

Case Title: Mohd. Hassan Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: JKLHC-JMU:2817

Case Number: WP(C) No. 21/2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar