38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, October 07, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Right To Change Name Is A Fundamental Right: Jammu And Kashmir HC [Read Judgment]

By Saket Sourav      15 September, 2025 03:15 PM      0 Comments
Right To Change Name Is A Fundamental Right Jammu And Kashmir HC

Jammu: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the right to change one’s name is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, while quashing the School Education Board’s rejection of a student’s request to change his name in educational certificates from Raj Wali to Mohd Hassan.

The court of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that individual autonomy over personal identity is essential, emphasizing that a name is a crucial expression of one’s individuality and that the State cannot arbitrarily deny this right based on technical regulations.

The court addressed a writ petition by Mohd Hassan challenging an order dated December 24, 2024, whereby the J&K Board of School Education rejected his application to change his name in his High School and Intermediate certificates from his original name Raj Wali.

The petitioner’s case revealed personal distress caused by his original name, with the court noting, “His original name was Raj Wali and the said name has been recorded in his educational qualification certificates including High School and Intermediate certificates, but he was deeply aggrieved by the said name as his friends used to make fun of it.”

The petitioner had been unable to change his name during childhood as his parents were unwilling, forcing him to continue his education with the name Raj Wali. However, after graduation, he completed all legal formalities for the name change, obtaining a Gazette Notification dated April 15, 2023, and updating his name in Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID, Driving License, Passport, and Domicile Certificate.

Despite completing all legal requirements and approaching the Board with relevant documents, the Board rejected his application, prompting the constitutional challenge claiming violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.

The Board defended its action citing Notification No. 18 of 1995 and subsequent regulations, arguing that the petitioner’s request was “over and above the mandate of the Committee” and that he had approached them after the prescribed three-year limitation period from certificate issuance.

Justice Dhar extensively analyzed Supreme Court precedents, particularly the landmark judgment in Jigya Yadav (Minor) v. Central Board of Secondary Education (2021) 7 SCC 535, which established the constitutional framework for name change rights.

Citing the Supreme Court, Justice Dhar observed, “An individual must have complete control over her name and law must enable her to retain or to exercise such control freely at all times. Such control would inevitably include the aspiration of an individual to be recognised by a different name for a just cause.”

The court emphasized that name change is protected under freedom of expression, noting that “expression of identity is a protected element of freedom of expression under the Constitution” and that “any change in identity of an individual has to go through multiple steps and it cannot be regarded as complete without proper fulfilment of those steps.”

The judgment referenced multiple High Court decisions supporting this principle. The Kerala High Court in Kashish Gupta v. CBSE had observed, “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.”

Justice Dhar also addressed the Board’s technical objections, particularly the three-year limitation period, finding a crucial distinction between “correction” and “change” of particulars. The court held, “The limitation of three years prescribed vide Notification dated 16.02.2009 is in respect of requests for correction of registered particulars and not in respect of requests for change of registered particulars.”

The court explained that while correction involves rectifying transcriptional or typographical errors, change encompasses wholesale modification of name, parentage, or other details. Since the petitioner sought change rather than correction, the three-year limitation was inapplicable.

Regarding the Board’s authority to effect such changes, the court interpreted existing regulations in light of constitutional rights, stating, “Since the right to adopt or change name has been declared as a fundamental right, Notification dated 06.02.1995 must be interpreted in a manner that does not infringe the fundamental right of an individual who seeks to change his name.”

The court emphasized that statutory documents like Aadhaar, PAN, and Passport enjoy legal presumption of correctness under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be ignored by educational boards when considering name change requests.

Justice Dhar also criticized the Board’s failure to consider these documents, observing, “While considering the request of the petitioner for effecting change in his name registered in the certificates issued by the respondent-Board, the correction committee of the Board has to take into consideration the statutory documents placed on record by the petitioner.”

The court distinguished this case from precedents cited by the respondents, noting that previous judgments dealt with correction of details like date of birth rather than fundamental name change rights, making their ratios inapplicable.

Following Supreme Court guidelines in Jigya Yadav, the court directed that fresh certificates should reflect the name as “Raj Wali alias Mohd Hassan” to maintain record integrity while acknowledging the legal name change.

The judgment concluded, “The impugned action of the respondent-Board in rejecting the request of the petitioner for change of name is not sustainable in law and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed.”

Mr. Abid Khan, Advocate appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. B.S. Bali, Advocate represented the respondents.

Case Title: Mohd. Hassan v. UT of J&K & Ors., WP(C) No. 21/2025

[Read Judgment]



Share this article:

About:

Saket is a final-year law student at The National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. He has...Read more

Follow:
Linkedin


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Jammu & Kashmir High Court directs Election Commission to accept nomination papers of Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal Jammu & Kashmir High Court directs Election Commission to accept nomination papers of Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal

Jammu & Kashmir High Court directs Election Commission to accept nomination papers of Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal, allowing their participation in upcoming Assembly elections in 4 states. Get the latest news on this political development.

Publicly slapping wife does not constitute outraging modesty: J&K HC [Read Order] Publicly slapping wife does not constitute outraging modesty: J&K HC [Read Order]

Husband slapping wife publicly is not "outraging a woman's modesty", Jammu & Kashmir HC holds.

Jammu and Kashmir High Court Grants Bail To Gang Rape Accused, Emphasizes Presumption Of Innocence [Read Order] Jammu and Kashmir High Court Grants Bail To Gang Rape Accused, Emphasizes Presumption Of Innocence [Read Order]

Jammu and Kashmir High Court grants bail to two men accused of gang rape, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and questioning the credibility of the allegations.

Mere involvement of relatives in anti national activities in the past can not be a ground to deny Govt contracts: J&K and Ladakh HC [Read Judgment] Mere involvement of relatives in anti national activities in the past can not be a ground to deny Govt contracts: J&K and Ladakh HC [Read Judgment]

J&K and Ladakh High Court rules past relatives' anti-national activities can't deny government contracts, upholding citizens' constitutional rights to livelihood.

TRENDING NEWS

allahabad-hc-refuses-interim-protection-to-sambhal-mosque-asks-petitioners-to-approach-appellate-court
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Refuses Interim Protection to Sambhal Mosque, Asks Petitioners to Approach Appellate Court [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court refused interim protection to Sambhal mosque, directing petitioners to seek remedy before the appellate court under UP Revenue Code.

06 October, 2025 04:48 PM
calling-off-marriage-after-courtship-not-a-crime-or-breach-of-promise-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
Calling Off Marriage After Courtship Not A Crime Or Breach Of Promise: Delhi HC [Read Order]

Delhi High Court grants bail, ruling that ending marriage plans after courtship is not a breach of promise or offence under false promise to marry.

06 October, 2025 05:03 PM

TOP STORIES

patna-hc-quashes-fir-against-energy-drink-seller-rules-trace-alcohol-within-bis-limits
Trending Judiciary
Patna HC Quashes FIR Against Energy Drink Seller, Rules Trace Alcohol Within BIS Limits [Read Judgment]

Patna HC quashes FIR against energy drink seller, rules products with less than 0.5% alcohol meet BIS standards and don’t violate Bihar prohibition laws.

01 October, 2025 06:47 PM
tn-files-review-plea-against-sc-judgment-mandating-tet-for-in-service-teachers
Trending Judiciary
TN files review plea against SC judgment mandating TET for in service teachers

TN moves SC with review plea against mandatory TET rule, citing risk of mass teacher disqualification and disruption of children’s right to education.

01 October, 2025 11:30 PM
allahabad-hc-refuses-interim-protection-to-sambhal-mosque-asks-petitioners-to-approach-appellate-court
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Refuses Interim Protection to Sambhal Mosque, Asks Petitioners to Approach Appellate Court [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court refused interim protection to Sambhal mosque, directing petitioners to seek remedy before the appellate court under UP Revenue Code.

06 October, 2025 04:48 PM
calling-off-marriage-after-courtship-not-a-crime-or-breach-of-promise-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
Calling Off Marriage After Courtship Not A Crime Or Breach Of Promise: Delhi HC [Read Order]

Delhi High Court grants bail, ruling that ending marriage plans after courtship is not a breach of promise or offence under false promise to marry.

06 October, 2025 05:03 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email