The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the Right to Identity as an intrinsic part of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, allowing individuals to change their surname to avoid prejudice based on caste.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by two brothers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing and setting aside of the letter dated 01.06.2017 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), thereby refusing to change the name of father of the petitioners in their 10th and 12th Board Certificates as issued by the CBSE.

2. Name of the father of the petitioners in their Class 10th and 12th Certificates issued by the CBSE, is reflected as `Lakshman Mochi'.

3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that their father decided to change his surname from `Mochi' to `Nayak' due to caste atrocities suffered by him on day to day basis, based on his surname. Thus, petitioners' father published a note in newspaper informing about change of his name from `Lakshman Mochi' to `Lakshman Nayak' for all future purposes. Thereafter, their father's name was changed from `Lakshman Mochi' to `Lakshman Nayak', as published in the Gazette of India.

4. Thereafter, the aforesaid change was also reflected in the various public documents in favour of the father of the petitioners. Thus, name of the father of the petitioners is reflected as `Lakshman Nayak' in the Adhaar Card, PAN Card as well as Identity Card as issued by the Election Commission of India. All the aforesaid documents have been duly placed on record before this Court.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners applied for change of their father's name in the 10th and 12th Certificates as issued by the CBSE. However, the same was rejected by the CBSE by the impugned letter dated 01.06.2017. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. On behalf of respondent CBSE, it has been contended that the change in the surname of the petitioners would entail change in the caste of the petitioners, which could be misused. It is further contended that the petitioners are seeking change of their father's name, which is beyond the records of the school and is not permissible.

7. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

8. As per the facts which are manifest from the documents on record, the petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste. The word `Mochi' is a caste name within the larger cobbler community dealing with leather and more particularly with footwear. `Mochi' became surname of father of the petitioners owing to the work being carried out by the family to which the petitioners belong.

9. Owing to the social stigma attached, the father of the petitioners changed his surname. Thus, in order to overcome the social stigma and the disadvantage faced by the petitioners on account of their surname, the petitioners applied for change of their father's name in the Class 10th and 12th Certificates as issued by the CBSE.

10. The denial by the CBSE for carrying out the requisite change in the certificates of the petitioners, is totally unjustified. It is to be noted that the petitioners have every right to have an identity which gives them an honourable and respectable identity in the society. If the petitioners have suffered any disadvantage on account of their surname and have faced social prejudices due to the same, they are certainly entitled to change of their identity that gives respectability to the petitioners in the societal structure.

11. The Right to Identity is an intrinsic part of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no denying the fact that Right to Life includes within its ambit, the Right to Live with Dignity, which includes not to be tied down by any casteism that a person may face on account of the caste to which such person belongs. Thus, if a person wants to change his or her surname, so as not to be identified with any particular caste that may be a cause of prejudice to such person in any manner, the same is permissible.

12. In the present case, the court notes that the father of the petitioners has alr