The Kerala High Court was hearing a Writ petition filed by a 17-year old girl, who wanted to change her name.
Facts:
A young girl wished to change her name, but CBSE turned down her request for incorporating the change of name on a hyper- technicality.
State of Kerala had accepted petitioner’s wish to change her name and effected a Gazette notification in 2017 to that effect. Change of name has been carried out in the birth certificate of the petitioner as well.
By the time the aforesaid processes were completed, petitioner had written her All India Secondary School Examination in 2018. Certificate issued by the CBSE, contained petitioner’s former name. At the request of the parents of the Petitioner, the Principal of the School submitted application to the regional officer of CBSE, requesting to carry out the change of name in the CBSE certificates and records. An e-mail communication was sent to the school, stating that “The desired change in Candidate’s name cannot be considered in the light of CBSE notification dated 01-02-2018 as per rule No. 69.1 (i) duly incorporated in the Examination Bye Laws. Therefore, your request for the said change in Candidate’s name has been rejected by the Board.”
However, the petitioner was issued the admit card for the main examination of CBSE for the year 2020, with the new name and she appeared for two of the examinations that were held prior to the declaration of the nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19.
Petitioner’s case:
Since an anomaly of far-reaching consequences may result if the variance in the name of the petitioner is not corrected, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus, to the CBSE to correct her name in the mark sheet of All India Secondary School Examination 2018, as well as in all other records maintained by them.
Respondent’s case:
The Standing Counsel for the CBSE submitted that even though there is no dispute as to the identity or the bonafides of the change in name, it is difficult for CBSE to incorporate the change of name after publication of the results on account of various technicalities that they face. He referred to clause 69.1(i) of the amended CBSE bye laws and canvassed that change of name can be effected only if it is done before publication of the results.
He further submitted that CBSE is flooded with applications for changes to be incorporated, and hence they have preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in another matter, which is pending consideration and that directions for change of name may be considered only after the Supreme Court passes an order in the said case.
High Court’s observations:
Considering that the petitioner who is on the verge of completing her 12th standard and if delay occurs, she could be subjected to immense hardships, the Court decided to proceed to dispose of the case on merits.
The High Court reflected that “Name is something very personal to an individual. Name is an expression of one’s individuality, one’s identity and one’s uniqueness. Name is the manner in which an individual expresses himself to the world at large. It is the foundation on which he moves around in a civil society. In a democracy, free expression of one’s name in the manner he prefers is a facet of individual right.”
The bench observed that,
“In our Country, to have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is certainly a part of right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) as well as a part of the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. State or its instrumentalities cannot stand in the way of use of any name preferred by an individual or for any change of name into one of his choice except to the extent prescribed under Article 19(2) or by a law which is just, fair and reasonable. Subject to the limited grounds of control and regulation of fraudulent or criminal activities or other valid causes, a bonafide claim for change of name in the records maintained by the Authorities ought to be allowed without hesitation.”
The High Court stated that “Power of interpretation available to this Court to correct errors committed by the draftsman is quite wide. When the language of a statute in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence.”
Accordingly, the High Court applied the principles of interpretation mentioned above, and interpreted the word “AND” occurring in Rule 69 (1)(i) of the CBSE Examination by laws as meaning ‘OR’.
The Court stated that “when such an interpretation is adopted, it is clear that two methods are available for the CBSE to change the name of a candidate in its records. It can be done either when a Court of Law admits the change of name OR when it is published in the Government Gazette. However, when it comes to publication in the Government Gazette, the change would be reflected in its records only when the change was notified in the Government Gazette before publication of the result of the candidate.”
The bench further stated that, in the present case the publishing in the Government Gazette was done before publication of result, thus, CBSE was liable to correct the change of name upon receiving application from the principal of the school.
High Court held:
Having found the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner and after realising that she has been subjected to unfair treatment by the 2nd respondent, the Court felt that interests of justice warrant the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, to render justice to the petitioner by directing the incorporation of change of name in the school records, after ignoring communication. Otherwise, petitioner who is already in the midst of her 12th standard examinations may lose out on her career prospects, especially since contradictory names will be reflected in her records.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Regional Officer of CBSE, to correct the name of the petitioner from in the CBSE certificates within a period of 6 weeks.
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Case Title: Kashish Gupta v. The Central Board of Secondary Education
Case Details: W.P(C)NO. 7489 OF 2020
Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. K.R Vinod
Counsel for Respondent: Adv. S. Nirmal
Read the Judgement:
Picture Source :
