1

Right to change one’s name and the right to life: What two HCs have ruled

|

Why in News?

  • The right to change one’s name or surname is a part of the right to life under Article 21, the High Courts (HC) of Allahabad and Delhi recently said.
  • The Allahabad HC said that the fundamental right to keep/change one’s name is vested in every citizen under Articles 19(1)(a), 21, and 14 of the Constitution, while the Delhi HC ruled that the right to identity is an “intrinsic part” of Article 21.

What’s in Today’s Article?

  • What are the Cases before the HCs?
  • The Ruling of the HCs
  • What did the HCs say about Article 21?
  • What are the Restrictions on the Right to Change Names?

What are the Cases before the HCs?

  • In ‘Sadanand & Anr. vs CBSE & Ors’, a plea was filed by two brothers before the Delhi HC.
    • Owing to caste atrocities suffered, the father had earlier changed his surname and published it in the newspaper and the Gazette of India as required.
    • His surname was changed across various public documents, such as Aadhaar, PAN, and Voter ID.
    • However, CBSE refused to update the brothers’ certificates with the father’s new surname as this would subsequently entail a change in their caste, which could be misused.
  • In ‘Md. Sameer Rao vs. State of UP’, the Allahabad HC dealt with a petition filed against an order rejecting petitioner’s application to change his name in his High School and Intermediate certificates, seemingly for a higher sense of self-worth.
    • The state argued that a change in the name is not an absolute right and is subject to restrictions imposed by law.

The Ruling of the HCs:

  • The Allahabad HC:
    • The authorities had arbitrarily rejected the application for a change of name, and such actions violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 14 of the Constitution.
    • A name is an indispensable component of a person’s identity and falls within the realm of the right to privacy.
    • Congruence in all identity-related documents is essential. Allowing one to carry identification documents with separate names would lead to confusion/ mischief.
  • The Delhi HC:
    • The father had decided to change his surname in order to overcome the social stigma and the disadvantage faced by his sons and that CBSE’s denial was totally unjustified.
    • The petitioners have every right to have an identity which gives them an honourable and respectable identity in the society.
    • If they suffered any disadvantage on account of their surname or faced social prejudices due to it, they are certainly entitled to a change of their identity.

 What did the HCs say about Article 21?

  • In both the Delhi and Allahabad HC cases, a common thread of Article 21 was found running.
  • The Allahabad HC observed that the right to keep a name of choice/ change the name according to personal preference comes within the mighty sweep of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
    • The court relied on the Kerala HC ruling (2020), which ruled that to have a name and to express the same is certainly a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) and Article 21.
  • The Delhi HC held that the “Right to Identity” is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
    • There is no denying the fact that the Right to Life includes within its ambit, the Right to Live with Dignity, which includes not to be tied down by any casteism faced by a person due to the caste to which s/he belongs.

What are the Restrictions on the Right to Change Names?

  • The Allahabad HC clarified that the right to change/ keep one’s name is not an absolute right and is subject to various reasonable restrictions.
  • State or its instrumentalities cannot stand in the way of the use of any name/ change of name except to the extent prescribed under Article 19(2).
    • Article 19(2) allows for restrictions in the interests of the security and sovereignty of India, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality, etc.
  • However, the restrictions imposed by law on fundamental rights have to be fair, just, and reasonable [K. S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017)].
  • The principle of proportionality is an essential facet of the guarantee against arbitrary state action, since it ensures that the nature and quality of the right’s encroachment are not disproportionate to the law’s purpose