School records of child in exclusive single mother custody correctable to mother's name and Scheduled Caste based on upbringing, not rigid paternal presumption; upholds dignity (Art.21), equality (Art.14), child welfare over bureaucratic rigidity.

JUDGMENT :

Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 raises, at first blush, what appears to be a routine prayer for correction of a minor student’s name in school records. But it also carries a second prayer of far greater constitutional and human significance; the correction of the caste entry of the minor child from “Maratha” to “Scheduled Caste – Mahar” in the school record maintained by Respondent No.4 and supervised by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. In our view, the facts of the case, and the constitutional values that must govern State action when the identity, dignity and future of a child are at stake, compel relief to be granted.

3. Petitioner No.1 is a girl child aged about 12 years, studying in 6th Standard in the school of Respondent No.4. Petitioner No.2 is her single mother and natural guardian. The record placed before us shows that the biological father of Petitioner No.1 is the accused in a criminal case arising out of a sexual offence against Petitioner No.2, and that a DNA report during investigation confirmed paternity. The accused’s name came to be reflected as“father” in the birth certificate and thereafter entered in permeated school and allied documentation.

4. A settlement/compromise is stated to have taken place between petitioner No.2 and accused-father on 14 December 2022 whereby the permanent custody of Petitioner No.1 remained with Petitioner No.2 and the accused was to have no role as natural guardian in future. Consequent thereto, Petitioner No.2 caused a Gazette notification for change of name of Petitioner No.1. On 9 April 2025, Petitioner No.2 moved Respondent No.4 seeking correction of the minor’s name and caste entry in school records. Respondent No.4 forwarded the request to the Education Officer (Secondary). By communication dated 2 June 2025, the proposal was rejected on the ground that the Secondary School Code/School Code of Conduct does not permit such corrections. From these pleadings, the issues that arise are: (i) whether the authorities were justified in refusing to correct the minor’s name in the school record; (ii) whether they were justified in refusing to correct the caste entry from “Maratha” to “Scheduled Caste – Mahar”; and (iii) what directions, consistent with statutory safeguards against misuse, must issue so that the minor’s identity is protected without undermining the integrity of caste certification regimes.

5. Petitioner No.1 is about twelve years of age. Petitioner No.2 is her mother and, as the petition pleads and the record indicates, her only parent. The pleadings disclose that, at the stage of birth and early documentation, the father’s name came to be entered in the birth certificate and thereafter was carried into school records. Subsequent events, however, fundamentally altered the position: Petitioner No.2 has exclusive custody, shoulders full responsibility for upbringing, education and maintenance, and the father is not part of the child’s life in any legal or functional sense. The petitioners assert, and it is not meaningfully rebutted, that continuation of the father’s name and surname in the school record does not merely