Name Change Is Not A Fundamental Right, Subject To Government Policies And Regulations: Allahabad HC

Allahabad HC: Name Change Not an Absolute Fundamental Right

 

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that changing one’s name is not an absolute fundamental right and must follow legal formalities. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra overturned a Single Judge's directive that allowed a petitioner to change his name in educational records.

 

Case Background

 

The case arose when Md. Sameer Rao (formerly Shahnawaz) sought to update his High School and Intermediate certificates with his new name. He relied on a 2020 gazette notification and updated Aadhaar and PAN cards. However, the U.P. Board rejected his request, citing Regulation 7 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which bars name changes after three years from certificate issuance.

 

Rao challenged this before a Single Judge Bench, which ruled in his favor, directing the Board to update his records. The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by Advocates Kunal Ravi Singh and Rama Nand Pandey, appealed against this decision.

 

Key Legal Issues

 

1. Does changing one’s name fall under Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty)?

 

 

2. Can courts override statutory regulations limiting name changes?

 

 

3. Is a gazette notification alone enough for official records to be updated?

 

 

4. Can educational boards be forced to alter records years after issuance?

 

 

 

Arguments & Court’s Observations

 

State’s Stand (Appellants)

 

Fundamental rights aren’t absolute; they are subject to reasonable restrictions.

 

Regulation 7’s three-year limit is valid and cannot be ignored.

 

A gazette notification alone is insufficient—a civil court declaration is mandatory (Jigya Yadav v. CBSE, 2021).

 

The Single Judge overstepped its jurisdiction by effectively amending statutory regulations.

 

 

Respondent’s Stand (Md. Sameer Rao)

 

Personal autonomy includes the right to change one’s name under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.

 

Aadhaar and PAN updates prove identity, making a court declaration unnecessary.

 

The Single Judge rightly upheld personal rights and prevented bureaucratic hurdles.

 

 

 

Final Verdict

 

The High Court reversed the Single Judge’s order, affirming that:

 

1. Name change is not an unrestricted fundamental right under Article 21.

 

 

2. The U.P. Board’s three-year limit is valid and binding.

 

 

3. A gazette notification alone does not confer an automatic right to update educational records.

 

 

4. Prior civil court approval is mandatory for such changes.

 

 

5. Courts cannot rewrite laws—judicial overreach in policy matters is impermissible.

 

 

 

This ruling reinforces the principle that while individuals have autonomy over their identity, legal procedures must be followed, ensuring administrative consistency and preventing misuse.

 AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube