New Delhi: A 27-year-old engineer from Moradabad has taken his fight to change his name in his school academic records to the Supreme Court, after the Allahabad High Court rejected his request.
Md. Sameer Rao, earlier known as Shahnawaz, has petitioned the top court to set aside the High Court’s February decision, which asked him to first seek a declaration from a civil court and then apply to the Uttar Pradesh education board to change his name in his Class 10 and 12 board marksheets.
The High Court said the state board regional secretary had correctly rejected Sameer Rao’s application for his name change in the official records, as it was filed much after the limitation period of three years under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The time limit begins from the day the exam results are announced
Regulation 40 of the 1921 law also prohibits application for a new name if it is done to reflect one’s religion or is on account of religious conversion.
Though the regional secretary had rejected Sameer Rao’s application with an observation that it fell foul of Regulation 40 as well, the High Court division bench did not address this aspect in its decision.
Sameer Rao has argued that the High Court’s decision violates his fundamental rights to free speech and expression. He wants the reinstatement of a May 2023 single-judge High Court order to make the changes.
The single-judge bench had recognised the right to name as an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution, and directed the state board’s regional secretary to carry out the changes.
Sameer Rao’s case is that he has complied with all the requirements to reflect his new name in official government documents, such as the Aadhaar and PAN cards. However, the state education board turned down his request to amend its records and do away with his old identity.
A bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai took note of Sameer Rao’s predicament and has sought a response from the state education board. While issuing notice to the state, the bench also appointed former Delhi High Court judge and senior advocate Rekha Palli to assist in the matter.
The appointment of an amicus curiae was made on the request of Sameer Rao, who appeared in person to argue his matter. The court is expected to hear the case in the second week of May.
Also Read: An acid attack survivor could not blink for bank KYC. Then she moved Supreme Court
Problems with two identities
Sameer Rao got two names when he was born. His father’s family named him Shahnawaz, while his maternal side called him Sameer. Later, he adopted Sameer as his preferred identity, though all his school documents showed Shahnawaz as his official name.
According to his petition, Sameer Rao faced difficulties due to having two identities—official documents named him Shahnawaz, while friends and locals in his village knew him as Sameer.
During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, he began looking into ways to get his name changed in official records. On 2 October 2020, he published a name change notice in the Gazette of India declaring his official name as Sameer Rao.
He then got a similar notification published in a local daily newspaper and sent an application to the regional secretary of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad’s regional office in Bareilly. But to his disappointment, his application was rejected on 24 December 2020, on the ground that it was a “time-barred matter.”
He then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, where a single-judge bench allowed his petition and set aside the regional secretary’s order. The bench went a step further and directed the relevant authorities to destroy or dispose of Sameer Rao’s earlier identity documents and issue fresh documents, if not done, consistent with his changed name. It asked Sameer Rao to surrender all public documents that contained his old identity.
The bench also read down Regulation 40 of the 1921 law, which bars name changes linked to religious reasons, saying the provision infringes the fundamental right to profess and practice a religion of one’s choice guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
“It is noteworthy that law does not prevent giving the said names at birth. The names given at christening can also be taken later in life. If the former are not prohibited it stands to reason that the latter cannot be proscribed,” the bench said.
“At times change of name pursuant to change of caste or religion is part of rituals which precede the same. Prohibitions of this nature infringe the fundamental right to profess and practice a religion of one’s choice guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.”
The judge also directed the Union Home Ministry and the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary to create a clear legal and administrative framework to make it easier to prepare identity-related documents.
Court nod necessary to change name in school records
After the state education board appealed the ruling, the High Court’s division bench said a civil court declaration was a prerequisite for a person to formally adopt a new name. It held that the education board could only consider such a request once a court decree had been submitted.
After analysing Sameer Rao’s case and a previous Supreme Court judgement on the issue, the division bench observed that it wasn’t a case of simple name spelling correction or minor changes. Instead, it fell into the category of an applicant acquiring a new name.
“The petitioner did not approach the Board to correct his name based upon documents of identity like Aadhaar Card/ Birth Certificate/ Voter I.D. Card etc. preexisting in his new name, i.e. Shahnawaz,” it said.
The High Court held that to change a name in school records, prior court permission was necessary, along with an official gazette notification. On the single judge’s observations on Regulation 40 of the 1921 law, the division bench said the reading down of the provision was not justified.
In his case before the Supreme Court, Sameer Rao has asserted the division bench had “introduced an unwarranted requirement for a civil court declaration”, even though the state education board does not mandate it.
He argued the division bench had failed to recognise that the right to change one’s name is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and maintained the restrictive interpretations of procedural regulations of the 1921 law cannot override constitutional rights.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Ex-CJI Dipak Misra’s panel ‘copy-pasted’ document, says Singapore SC as it junks arbitral award