Individual Has Right To Update School Records After Voluntary Religious Conversion: Kerala High Court
The petitioner, originally registered as Muslim, converted to Hinduism in adulthood and sought to update his school records, which was denied by authorities.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that individuals who voluntarily change their religion have a constitutionally protected right, under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, to have such a change duly recorded in official educational documents.
A Bench of Justice D.K. Singh emphasized that the right to freely practice religion as enshrined in Article 25 also inherently includes the right to change one's religion voluntarily. The Court held, “If a person has changed his religion without any coercion, fraud, undue influence etc, such an act would be protected under the Constitution of India under the preamble as well as Article 25.”
It added, “Under the Constitutional scheme, every person has a fundamental right not merely to entertain the religious belief of his choice but also to exhibit this belief and ideas in manner which does not infringe the religious right and personal freedom of others.”
Background
This judgment came in response to a petition filed by a man originally named Mohammed Riyazudeen CS, who was born to a Muslim father and a Hindu mother. Raised by his mother in Kerala’s Palakkad district according to Hindu traditions, he was enrolled in school under the name ‘Mohammed Riyazudeen CS,’ and his religion was recorded as ‘Islam, Mappila.’
Upon reaching adulthood, the petitioner realized that he did not personally adhere to the Islamic faith and instead chose to follow Hinduism. He formalized his conversion through the Arya Samaj and subsequently published a Gazette notification reflecting his new name as ‘Sudhin Krishna CS’ and his religion as ‘Hindu.’
Seeking to update his school records—specifically, his Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC)—to reflect these changes, the petitioner submitted a request to the relevant authorities. However, the authorities rejected the application, claiming that the Kerala Education Act and Rules did not contain provisions for altering the recorded caste or religion in school documents.
In response, the petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that this rejection contravened Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. This rule, he contended, explicitly provides for the correction or updating of a student’s name, caste, and religion in school records.
The government’s counsel opposed the petition on multiple grounds. It was argued that no specific government authority had been officially designated under Rule 3(1) to make such changes to religion or caste in school records. Additionally, the state’s representative maintained that, by a previous government order, the Commissioner of Examinations was empowered only to handle corrections related to date of birth.
Observation
The High Court, however, rejected these contentions. The Court ruled that the authority empowered to correct the date of birth under the Kerala Education Rules is also authorized to make corrections to name, caste, and religion in school records.
The Court clearly stated that there cannot be multiple authorities designated for making corrections to date of birth, caste, and religion. The same official entrusted with one type of correction must be recognized as competent for others as well.
Accordingly, the Court issued a directive to the Commissioner of Examinations to process the petitioner’s request and to permit the changes to his name and religion in the school records.
The Court further clarified, "It is again made clear that Rule 3(1) Chapter VI of KER 1959 provides for effecting the changes in the caste and religion as well besides the date of birth, and the same authority which has been empowered to effect the change in the date of birth will have the power to effect the changes in caste and religion of the students."
Cause Title: Sudhin Krishna CS v. State of Kerala & Ors., [2025:KER:36913]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Santheep Ankarath and P. Anirudhan,
Respondent: Government Pleader Parvathy Kottol
