JUDGMENT :

1. The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:

2. Both writ petitions arise out of same issue and are being decided by a common judgment.

I. Introduction:

3. By the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 the Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Bareilly, U.P. has rejected the application of the petitioner for change of his name in the High School and Intermediate certificates.

II. Facts:

4. Brief facts are these. Name of the petitioner was recorded as “Shahnawaz” in the Board of High School Examination certificate, and the Intermediate Examination certificate by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad issued in 2013 and 2015 respectively.

5. The petitioner publicly disclosed the change of his name by causing the following notification to be published in the Gazette of India bearing Gazette No. 39 New Delhi, Saturday, September 26 — October 2, 2020 (Asvina 4, 1942) Part-IV, Page 1091:

“I hitherto known as SHAHNAWAZ son of MAUVEEN HUSAIN, residing at village Mehloli, Pot Jalalpur Khs, Tehsil Bilari, Disst. Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244411, have changed my name and shall hereafter be known as MD. SAMEER RAO.

It is certified that I have complied with other legal requirements in this connection.

SHAHNAWAZ

[Signature (in existing old name)]”

6. A similar notification was also published in a local daily newspaper “Hindustan” having wide circulation in the area.

7. The petitioner made an application for change of his name from “Shahnawaz” to “Md Sameer Rao” to the respondent Board in the year 2020. The said application was declined by the impugned order.

III. Submissions of learned counsels

8. The petitioner was present in Court and expressed his inability to engage a counsel due to paucity of funds. A request was made by the Court to the members of the Bar at large to represent the petitioner pro bono. Shri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, learned counsel volunteered to represent the petitioner and assist the Court in high traditions of the legal profession. Shri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the Union of India is present.

9. Shri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner/amicus curiae submitted as under:

(A). The rejection of the name change application by the respondent authorities is arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions holding the field.

(B). The right to keep name is relatable to fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(C). The relevant Regulations have to be interpreted in light of the holdings of the constitutional courts to uphold the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The offending provisions of Regulation 40 (x) are liable to be read down.

(D). The authority erred in law by rejecting the application on the grounds of limitation by invoking Regulation 7 framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which is inapplicable to applications for change of name.

10. (I). Shri I. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the change of name is not an absolute right and subject to various restrictions imposed by law. The application for change of name was rightly rejected since it was barred by limitation.

(II). Citation of wrong provision will not void the impugned order since power is vested in the authority by virtue of Regulation 40 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

(III). The claim of the petitioner for change of name is in the teeth of the said provision. The proposed name falls in the prohibited category