Right To Be Recognised By One's Name Is A Civil Right; Civil Court Can Entertain Suit For Change Of Name: Karnataka High Court
The Court decreed minor's suit to change name in school records; held school head has no authority to alter name and only recourse is a civil court decree.
The Karnataka High Court has held that being recognised by one's name is a civil right of every citizen, and that a suit for correction or change of name is maintainable before a civil court under Section 9 of the CPC. Allowing a Regular First Appeal, the Court set aside a trial court decree that had dismissed a minor girl's suit seeking a change of name.
The Court also held that a school head has no authority to change a student's name in school or other records, so that the only recourse is to obtain a decree from a competent civil court. It relied on a Government of Karnataka circular requiring such a decree, and found the trial court's reasons for dismissal unwarranted.
A Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar observed, “Every person in society is necessarily to be recognized by his/her name. It is a civil right of every citizen in India to be recognized by his/her name. Therefore, for correction or change of name, filing a suit before the Civil Court is maintainable, as it relates to the adjudication of a civil right. Therefore, for change of the name of a candidate, the competent Civil Court has jurisdiction as per Section 9 of CPC”.
Advocate Sampath Kumar A.V. appeared for the appellant and V. Seshu, AGA appeared for the respondents.
The plaintiff, born in October 2010 in Bengaluru, was named "Lakshmi N." by her parents. They later wished to change her name to "Veena N." on the belief, based on astrology and numerology, that the new name would bring her prosperity. Acting through her father as natural guardian, she sued for a declaration that her name is "Veena N." and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to record it in school and other records.
The XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissed the suit, and noted that no document proved the name "Veena N.", that no public notice of the change had been issued, and that the parents had not approached the school.
The father examined himself as PW.1 and marked two exhibits, while the defendants led no evidence. In appeal, the plaintiff produced a newspaper public notice as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The State argued that the suit was not maintainable.
The High Court held that the trial court's insistence on documents bearing the new name was misplaced, since the plaintiff never claimed the original entry was erroneous and simply wished to be called by a different name.
It found that the school head lacked authority to effect the change and that the Government circular dated October 26, 2025 requires a civil court decree for changes of name. Sworn evidence that is neither contradicted nor disproved can be accepted, it observed, and no one had objected to the change. It noted that the decree would cause no harm to the defendants or to anyone else, and held that the civil court has jurisdiction because the claim concerns adjudication of a civil right.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and decreed the suit. It directed the defendants to change the plaintiff's name to "Veena N." in all school records, declared that she shall be recognised by that name for all consequential purposes, and made no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Minor Plaintiff, rep. by natural guardian father v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:50858).
Appearances:
Appellant: Sampath Kumar A.V., Advocate.
Respondent: V. Seshu, AGA.