While asking the Education Board to consider the request of a man for a change of name in his educational qualification certificates, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the right to change the name is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India and a person cannot be denied this right on technical issues.

The Petitioner approached the High Court challenging the Order whereby the request for a change of his name in the educational qualification certificates, including High School and intermediate certificates, was rejected. The petitioner also sought a direction from the respondents to change his name from Raj Wali to Mohd Hassan in his educational qualification certificates, including High School and intermediate certificates.

Referring to various judgments of the Apex Court, the Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar stated, “In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal position on the subject, it is clear that right to change the name is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Thus, it can safely be 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.”

Advocate Abid Khan represented the Petitioner, while Advocate B.S. Bali represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the petitioner was that his original name was Raj Wali, and the said name was recorded in his educational qualification certificates, including High School and intermediate certificates, but he was seriously aggrieved by the said name as his friends used to make fun of his name. It was after finishing his graduation that he started the process of changing his name from Raj Wali to Mohd. Hassan. A Notification was published in the Gazette of India in which it was declared that the petitioner has changed his name from Raj Wali to Mohd Hassan. After the publication of the changed name, his name was changed in other documents, including Aadhar Card, Pan Card, Voter ID Card, Driving Licence, Passport and Domicile Certificate.

After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the petitioner applied before the respondent-Board for effecting a change in his name along with all the relevant documents. However, vide impugned order, the respondent Board rejected the case of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to the Notification No. 18 of 1995, the Bench noted that two types of changes are permissible in terms of the aforesaid notification. One is the correction of mistakes in existing particulars, which can be permitted if it is a transcriptional or typographical error. The second is a change in registered particulars, other than the correction of typographical errors. The Bench also noticed that these include a change in name, a change in parentage, a change in date of birth and a change in surname etc. “However, these changes are permissible only in case it is warranted. Normal rule is that no change in registered particulars is permissible”, it stated.

“Since right to adopt or change name has been declared as a fundamental right, as such, Notification dated 06.02.1995 has to be interpreted in a manner so that it does not infringe the fundamental right of an individual who seeks to change his name. Thus, while reasonable restrictions in frequent changes of name may be read into aforesaid notification but it cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to put a blanket ban on change of name or particulars of an individual”, it held while also adding, “When interpreted in such a manner, the correction committee of the Board is definitely vested with the power to permit change in the name, parentage or other registered particulars of an individual in deserving case. Thus, the ground that request for change of name of the petitioner is beyond the mandate of the Correction Committee is not legally sustainable.”

As per the Bench, a change in particulars would include a wholesale change of name, parentage, date of birth, caste, surname, etc., but correction of particulars includes only rectification of transcriptional or typographical errors. The petitioner in the present case was seeking a change in registered particulars and not a correction of these particulars. Thus, the Bench held that the limitation period of three years would not apply to his case.

Reference was made to the judgment in Jigya Yadav (Minor) through Guardian/Father Hari Singh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors (2021), wherein it has been 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. “Thus, the Correction Committee of the respondent-Board has to consider the request of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the guidelines laid by the Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav’s case (supra) and take a decision thereon keeping in view the legal position that an individual has a fundamental right to adopt a particular name so as to give himself an identity of his choice”, it held.

Thus, allowing the Writ Petition, the Bench quashed the impugned action of the respondent-Board in rejecting the request of the petitioner for change of name. The Bench directed the respondents 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 case the request of the petitioner is accepted, 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”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Mohd. Hassan v. UT of J&K (Case No.: WP(C) No. 21/2025)

Click here to read/download Order


Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High CourtJustice Sanjay Dhar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.