SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
Arun Bhansali, CJ. Kshitij Shailendra, J.
State of U.P. and 2 others - Appellant
Versus
Md. Sameer Rao and 3 others - Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 459 of 2023
Decided On :  13-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kunal Ravi Singh,Rama Nand Pandey
For the Respondent: In Person,Shreyas Srivastava

The right to change one's name is subject to reasonable regulations, requiring prior court declaration for validity, which was not fulfilled in this case.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Regulation 7 of Chapter III and Regulation 40 of Chapter XII - Change of name in educational certificates - The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition to change the name from 'Shahnawaz' to 'Md Sameer Rao', citing violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution as the basis for reading down Regulation 40, which the Division Bench found to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. (Paras 4, 31, 34)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the learned Single Judge exceeded judicial review powers by issuing directions to the State, which are matters of legislative/executive domain, and held that the regulations must be adhered to unless declared unconstitutional by competent authority. (Paras 30, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, previously known as Shahnawaz, sought to change his name based on new identity documents and a gazette notification. The Board rejected his request citing it as time-barred under Regulation 7.

Findings of Court:
The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order, affirming that the regulations were valid and the request for name change was not permissible without prior court declaration.

Issues: The court addressed the validity of the regulations governing name changes in educational records and the jurisdiction of the Single Judge to read down these regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a name change requires a prior declaration from a civil court, and the regulations were not arbitrary or unconstitutional as claimed.

Result: Special appeal allowed; the Single Judge's judgment set aside.

Table of Content
1. judgment challenges the denial of name change application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. right to change name is linked to fundamental rights. (Para 4 , 7)
3. appellants argue for regulation compliance and restrictions. (Para 5 , 6)
4. supreme court's stance on name change conditions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. court's jurisdiction and declaration of legal character. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. civil court decree necessary for name change validation. (Para 14 , 15)
7. endless name change process concerns highlighted. (Para 16 , 17)
8. distinction between gazette notifications and court decrees. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
9. gazette publication requires legal backing. (Para 21 , 22)
10. regulations must be followed; reading down is limited. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
11. jurisdiction issues concerning regulation challenges. (Para 30 , 31)
12. petitioner's case lacks merit. (Para 32 , 33)
13. appeal allowed; single judge's order set aside. (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. State of U.P., U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (for short the ‘Board’) and its Regional Secretary are in intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, 1952 assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 25.05.2023 whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing Writ-C No. 3671 of 2022 (Md Sameer Rao Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), has set aside the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Regional Secretary of the Board and has also issued a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents of the writ petition to allow the application of the writ petitioner to change his name from “Shahnawaz” to “Md Sameer Rao” and, accordingly, issue fresh High School and Intermediate Certificates incorporating the said change. Learned Single Judge has also issued various other directions like surrender of public documents of identity like Adhar card, Ration card, Driving Licence, Passport, Voter I.D. card etc to the competent authorities with a direction to them to register the change of name, dispose off or destroy the earlier identity documents as per law and issue fresh documents consistent with his changed name. Learned Single Judge has also issued a direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of India and the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow to create appropriate legal and administrative framework to ensure that both Governments work in concert to achieve the end of making identity related identity documents removing anomalies therein.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Admittedly, the writ petitioner Md Sameer Rao was earlier known as Shahnawaz. He appeared in and cleared the High School and Intermediate Examinations conducted by the Board, respectively in the year 2013 and 2015 by the same name. He had all identity cards issued in his name as Shahnawaz. Copies of Adhar card and PAN card were brought on record of the proceedings. In the year 2020, based upon some newly issued Adhar card and PAN card in the name of Md. Sameer Rao and also a gazette notification published in Gazette of India bearing Gazette No. 39 New Delhi, Saturday, September 26 - October 2, 2020 (Asvina 4, 1942) Part-IV, Page 1091, he approached the Board to incorporate his new name in the High School and Intermediate Certificates and issue new certificates having his name printed as “Md. Sameer Rao”. The said application was rejected by the Regional Secretary of the Board by order dated 24.12.2020 on the ground that as the case fell with the category of “time barred matter” and, as per Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short the Act, 1921), request for change cannot be considered after a period of three years. It is this order which was challenged by the writ petitioner and has been set aside by the learned Single Judge and is impugned in the instant appeal.

3. THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2020 IMPUGNED BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

GIST OF JUDGMENT OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

4. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top