Kerala High Court
Sudhin Krishna C.S vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2025
Author: D. K. Singh
Bench: D. K. Singh
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:36913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUDHIN KRISHNA C.S.
AGED 32 YEARS
(PREVIOUSLY NAMED MOHAMMED RIYAZUDEEN C.S.), S/O. SYED
MOHAMMED C.I., PUTHUSSERY PARAMB, ODANNUR, PARALI P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678612
BY ADVS.
SANTHEEP ANKARATH
P.ANIRUDHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXAMINATIONS,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS,
PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695012
3 SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS,
PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, P, PIN -
695012
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
PARVATHY KOTTOL-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
JUDGMENT 'C.R'
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner's parents belong to different
religions. The father of the petitioner is a Muslim and
the mother of the petitioner is a Hindu. Though the
petitioner was born in Palani, Tamil Nadu, but he was
brought up in Kerala at Kodunthirapully in Palakkad
District. The petitioner completed his Secondary
Education at Grace Higher Secondary School,
Kodunthirapully. However, the school is no longer in
existence. At the time of admission in the school, the
petitioner's name was 'Mohammed Riyazudeen C.S.'
and his religion was mentioned as 'Islam, Mappila' .
3. According to the petitioner, when his name was
entered as 'Mohammed Riyazudeen C.S.', he was minor,
and it was the father of the petitioner who entered the
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
particulars of the petitioner, including his name and
religion, in the school. After he attained the majority, the
petitioner found that he does not believe in Islam and he
practices Hindu religion inasmuch as he was brought up
by his mother according to the tenets of the Hindu
religion. As the petitioner does not believe in Islam and
he practices Hindu religion, he wants to change his
name from 'Mohammed Riyazudeen C.S.' to 'Sudhin
Krishna C.S' and his religion as Hindu. It is again stated
in the petition that the petitioner is married to a Hindu
woman.
4. The petitioner has moved an application on
06.06.2024 before the 4th respondent for effecting the
changes in the name and religion of the petitioner, but
no action has been taken so far. It is also the case of the
petitioner that, the petitioner had officially converted
himself even other wise to Hinduism by embarrassing
the said religion and in support of the said contention, a
copy of the certificate dated 13.11.2021 issued by the
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
Arya Samajam, Calicut, has been produced along with
the writ petition as Ext.P3. The petitioner had also made
a Gazette notification concerning his change of religion
and name on 28.06.2022 as Ext.P4.
5. After filing the application and requisite
supporting documents, the petitioner received the
impugned communication dated 19.08.2024 stating
therein that there exists no provision in KER 1959, to
effect the changes in the religion in the School Leaving
Certificate.
6. The petitioner, however, submits that the
aforesaid stand of the respondents is in clear
contravention of Rule 3(1) Chapter VI of the KER, which
contemplates change in religion, caste and date of birth
of the students entered in the admission register. She
further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner's
case is covered by two judgments of this Court in
Naveed M.C @ Noufal vs. State of Kerala in W.P.C No.
3832/2021 dated 08.03.2021 and in Lohith S. vs. State
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
of Kerala, in W.P.(C) No.22847/2024, dated 09.07.2024.
The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore,
submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 3(1)
Chapter VI of KER as well as the aforesaid two
judgments, the impugned communication is to liable to
be set aside and the respondents should be directed to
correct the name and religion of the petitioner in his
SSLC book.
7. On the other hand, Ms.Parvathy Kottol, learned
Government Pleader, vehemently submits that the
Government has not notified an authority as provided in
Rule 3(1) Chapter VI of KER for effecting the changes in
caste and religion column. The Commissioner of
Examination has been notified vide Government Order
dated 30.06.2022, to alter the date of Birth.
8. However, in respect of the two judgments cited
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the
issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
aforesaid two judgments.
9. I have considered the submissions. Rule 3(1)
Chapter VI of KER reads as under:
"3. Alteration of Date of Birth etc:- (1) The name
of a pupil, his religion and his date of birth once entered
in the Admission Register shall not be altered except with
the sanction of the authority specified by Government in
this behalf by notification in the Gazette. Applications for
such alterations and corrections should be submitted by
the parent or guardian, if the pupil is still on the rolls of
any school and by the pupil himself if he is not on the rolls
of any school. All such applications shall be forwarded
through the Headmaster with satisfactory evidence.
[Court fee stamps to the value of One Rupee shall be
affixed on such application]."
10. The heading of the Rule is 'Alteration of Date of
Birth etc'. It is not only for the date of birth. The other
changes may also be effected by competent authority
which would include religion and caste besides the date
of birth.
11. There can't be multiple authorities for effecting
the changes in date of birth, caste and religion. When
the Statutory Rule prescribes the provision for effecting
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
the changes of the date of birth, religion and caste etc,
the same authority, who has been notified by the
Government vide Government Order dated 30.06.2022
will be empowered to effect changes in date of birth,
caste and religion, etc. Therefore, I find no substance in
the submission of the learned Government Pleader that
as the Government has not notified the authority for
effecting the changes in caste and religion, the
Commissioner of Examination, who has been notified
vide Government Order dated 30.06.2022 would not be
a competent authority to effect the changes in caste and
religion of School Leaving Certificate.
12. The Constitution of India gives freedom to the
citizens of India of their conscience, faith and religion.
The preamble of the Constitution of India aspires to
secure all citizens inter alia liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship. Article 25 of the
Constitution of India guarantees freedom of conscience
and free profession, practice and propagation of
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
religion, subject to public order, morality and health etc.
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. He has the fundamental
right to practice religion and faith as of his choice.
Therefore, when it is not the case of the respondents
that the person has changed his religion because of
fraud, undue influence and coercion etc., then the
citizen must be allowed to practice the faith and religion
of his choice. Article 25 of the Constitution of India
reads as under:
"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion.--(1) Subject to
public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of
any existing law or prevent the State from making any
law--
a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial,
political or other secular activity which may be associated
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
with religious practice;
b) providing for social welfare and reform or the
throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.--The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall
be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh
religion.
Explanation II.--In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the
reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a
reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or
Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious
institutions shall be construed accordingly."
13. In Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani
and others Vs. Union of Inda [(1995 )3 SCC 635], it
has been held that the second marriage of a Hindu
husband after converting to Islam, without dissolution
of the 1st marriage under law, would be void in terms of
Section 494 IPC, and such husband would be guilty of
bigamy under that Section. The said judgment came for
review in Lily Thomas vs. Union of India and others
[(2000) 6 SCC 224]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lily
Thomas(supra) held that freedom guaranteed under
Article 25 of the Constitution is such freedom, which
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
does not encroach upon a similar freedom of other
persons. 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.
Paragraph 62 of the said judgment is extracted
hereunder:
"62. The grievance that the judgment of the Court
amounts to violation of the freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and propagation of religion is also far-
fetched and apparently artificially carved out by such
persons who are alleged to have violated the law by
attempting to cloak themselves under the protective
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the
Constitution. No person, by the judgment impugned, has
been denied the freedom of conscience and propagation of
religion. The rule of monogamous marriage amongst Hindus
was introduced with the proclamation of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Section 17 of the said Act provided that any marriage
between two Hindus solemnised after the commencement of
the Act shall be void if at the date of such marriage either
party had a husband or wife living and the provisions of
Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
shall apply accordingly. The second marriage solemnised by
a Hindu during the subsistence of a first marriage is an
offence punishable under the penal law. Freedom
guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution is such
freedom which does not encroach upon a similar freedom of
other persons. Under the constitutional scheme every person
has a fundamental right not merely to entertain the religious
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
belief of his choice but also to exhibit this belief and ideas in
a manner which does not infringe the religious right and
personal freedom of others. It was contended in Sarla
Mudgal case that making a convert Hindu liable for
prosecution under the Penal Code would be against Islam,
the religion adopted by such person upon conversion. Such
a plea raised demonstrates the ignorance of the petitioners
about the tenets of Islam and its teachings. The word "Islam"
means "peace and submission". In its religious connotation it
is understood as "submission to the will of God"; according
to Fyzee (Outlines of Mohammedan Law, 2nd Edn.), in its
secular sense, the establishment of peace. The word
"Muslim" in Arabic is the active principle of Islam, which
means acceptance of faith, the noun of which is Islam.
Muslim law is admitted to be based upon a well-recognised
system of jurisprudence providing many rational and
revolutionary concepts, which could not be conceived of by
the other systems of law in force at the time of its inception.
Sir Ameer Ali in his book Mohammedan Law, Tagore Law
Lectures, 4th Edn., Vol. 1 has observed that the Islamic
system, from a historical point of view was the most
interesting phenomenon of growth. The small beginnings
from which it grew up and the comparatively short space of
time within which it attained its wonderful development
marked its position as one of the most important judicial
systems of the civilised world. The concept of Muslim law is
based upon the edifice of the Shariat. Muslim law as
traditionally interpreted and applied in India permits more
than one marriage during the subsistence of one and another
though capacity to do justice between co-wives in law is a
condition precedent. Even under the Muslim law plurality of
marriages is not unconditionally conferred upon the
husband. It would, therefore, be doing injustice to Islamic
law to urge that the convert is entitled to practise bigamy
notwithstanding the continuance of his marriage under the
law to which he belonged before conversion. The violators of
law who have contracted a second marriage cannot be
permitted to urge that such marriage should not be made the
subject-matter of prosecution under the general penal law
prevalent in the country. The progressive outlook and wider
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
approach of Islamic law cannot be permitted to be squeezed
and narrowed by unscrupulous litigants, apparently
indulging in sensual lust sought to be quenched by illegal
means, who apparently are found to be guilty of the
commission of the offence under the law to which they
belonged before their alleged conversion. It is nobody's case
that any such convertee has been deprived of practising any
other religious right for the attainment of spiritual goals.
Islam which is a pious, progressive and respected religion
with a rational outlook cannot be given a narrow concept as
has been tried to be done by the alleged violators of law"
14. In Indian Young Lawyers and others
(Sabarimala temple) vs. State of Kerala and others
[(2019) 11 SCC 1] it is held that the Article 25 grants
the right for Freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion. The conscience, as
a cognitive process in elicits emotions and associations
based on an individual's beliefs, rests only in individual.
The Constitution postulates that every individual has its
basic unit. The right guaranteed under part II of the
Constitution are geared towards the recognition of the
individual and its basic units. Paragraph 405 of the said
judgment is extracted hereunder:
"405. A religious denomination or any section thereof
has a right under Article 26 to manage religious affairs. This
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
right vests in a collection of individuals who demonstrate:
(i) the existence of a religious sect or body;
(ii) a common faith shared by those who belong to the
religious sect and a common spiritual organisation;
(iii) the existence of a distinctive name; and
(iv) a common thread of religion.
Article 25 grants the right to the freedom of conscience
and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
Conscience, as a cognitive process that elicits emotion and
associations based on an individual's beliefs rests only in
individuals. The Constitution postulates every individual as
its basic unit. The rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution are geared towards the recognition of the
individual as its basic unit. The individual is the bearer of
rights under Part III of the Constitution. The deity may be a
juristic person for the purposes of religious law and capable
of asserting property rights. However, the deity is not a
"person" for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution. The
legal fiction which has led to the recognition of a deity as a
juristic person cannot be extended to the gamut of rights
under Part III of the Constitution. In any case, the exclusion
of women from the Sabarimala Temple affects both, the
religious and civic rights of the individual. The anti-exclusion
principle would disallow a claim based on Articles 25 and 26
which excludes women from the Sabarimala Temple and
hampers their exercise of religious freedom. This is in
keeping with overarching liberal values of the Constitution
and its vision of ensuring an equal citizenship."
15. In Dr.M Ismail Faruqui and others vs.Union
of India and others [(1994) 6 SCC 360] it was held that
a mosque can be compulsorily acquired by the
Government in exercise of its sovereign and prerogative
power, which is independent of Article 300 A or Article
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
31 (as it stood before its omission). It was also held that
the status of a mosque in secular India is same as and
not higher than that of a places of worship of other
religions, such as temple, church etc. The right of
worship does not include right of worship at any and
every place of worship. What is protected under Article
25 is the religious practice which forms an essential and
integral part of the religion. Paragraphs 77 and 78 are
extracted here under:
"77. It may be noticed that Article 25 does not contain
any reference to property unlike Article 26 of the
Constitution. The right to practise, profess and propagate
religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution does
not necessarily include the right to acquire or own or possess
property. Similarly this right does not extend to the right of
worship at any and every place of worship so that any
hindrance to worship at a particular place per se may
infringe the religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution. The protection under Articles 25
and 26 of the Constitution is to religious practice which
forms an essential and integral part of the religion. A
practice may be a religious practice but not an essential and
integral part of practice of that religion.
78. While offer of prayer or worship is a religious
practice, its offering at every location where such prayers
can be offered would not be an essential or integral part of
such religious practice unless the place has a particular
significance for that religion so as to form an essential or
integral part thereof. Places of worship of any religion having
particular significance for that religion, to make it an
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
essential or integral part of the religion, stand on a different
footing and have to be treated differently and more
reverentially"
16. Similar view has been taken in the aforesaid
judgments (supra), and I respectfully follow the
aforesaid judgments and direct the respondents to
effect the changes as sought by the petitioner regarding
his name and religion in his SSLC Book. 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.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ
petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
D.K. SINGH
AP JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 41609 OF 2024
2025:KER:36913
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41609/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P 1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 6.6.2024 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P 2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.7.2024 FROM THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P 3 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 13.11.2021 ISSUED
BY ARYA SAMAJAM, CALICUT.
EXHIBIT P 4 TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.6.2022
EXHIBIT P 5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF RETURNING THE
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION AS DEFECTIVE AND DATED
19.8.2024 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
