Context: Recently, the High Courts of Allahabad and Delhi said that The right to change one’s name or surname is a part of the right to life under Article 21.

Court’s observations

Allahabad: The Allahabad HC said the fundamental right to keep or change one’s name is vested in every citizen under Articles 19(1)(a), 21, and 14 of the Constitution.

• Name changes made in the High School or Intermediate education certificates issued by the educational boards have to be simultaneously incorporated in all documents of identity issued by various authorities like Aadhar, PAN, ration card, etc., the court said, reasoning that congruence in all identity-related documents is essential.

• The court relied on the Kerala HC ruling in “Kashish Gupta vs. Central Board of Secondary Education” (2020), stating, “To have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is certainly a part of the 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. 

Delhi HC : The Delhi HC allowed a plea filed by two brothers to reflect their father’s changed surname — from “Mochi” to “Nayak” — on their Class 10 and 12 Board certificates, stating that the right to identity is an “intrinsic part” of the right to life under Article 21.

• The court also said that “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 he or she belongs.

Authorities stand 

• In ‘Sadanand & Anr. vs CBSE & Ors’, the CBSE contended that a change in the surname of the petitioners would subsequently entail a change in their caste, which could be misused. 

• It also said that seeking a change in the father’s name beyond the school records is not permissible.

• In ‘Md. Sameer Rao vs. State of U.P.’ the state argued that a change in the name is not an absolute right and is subject to restrictions imposed by law.

• It was also argued that the Board rightly rejected the name change as it was barred by limitation.

Some restrictions on the right to change names

• Although the right to change or keep one’s name is a fundamental right “by virtue of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21”, it is not an absolute right and is subject to various reasonable restrictions, as the Allahabad High Court clarified in Sameed Rao’s case.

• However, the restrictions imposed by law on fundamental rights have to be fair, just, and reasonable, the court said, citing the 2017 SC ruling in “K. S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India,” saying, “The inter-relationship between the guarantee against arbitrariness and the protection of life and personal liberty operates in a multi-faceted plane.”

• The court also highlighted the principle of proportionality as 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.

• The value of human dignity has an important role in determining the proportionality of a statute limiting a constitutional right, the court said, citing the test of reasonableness in the 2016 SC ruling in “Jeeja Ghosh vs. Union of India.”