Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arun Bhansali, CJ., Kshitij Shailendra
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Md. Sameer Rao – Respondent
| 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 t
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The provided case law summaries do not contain language such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "distinguished" that would suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of these decisions. Therefore, based solely on the information provided, there are no cases identified as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed]
None explicitly indicated. The first case discusses a name change order and does not mention subsequent treatment.
[Uncertain / No treatment indicated]
State Of U.P. And 2 Others Vs. Md. Sameer Rao And 3 Others - 2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 1016: This case involves a name change order for Md Sameer Rao. There is no information provided about how this case has been treated subsequently or whether it has been followed or overruled.
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220: This case states a legal principle that no juvenile can be sent to face a regular trial. The list does not specify whether this principle has been questioned, distinguished, or overruled in later decisions.
Since there are no explicit references to subsequent judicial treatment, all remaining cases are categorized as "uncertain" with respect to their treatment status.
State Of U.P. And 2 Others Vs. Md. Sameer Rao And 3 Others - 2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 1016: The case involves a name change order issued on 25.05.2023. There is no information on subsequent judicial treatment, so its current legal standing or influence remains unclear.
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS RAJU THR. MEMBER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD - 2014 3 Supreme 220: The case states a principle regarding juvenile trials but does not specify if this principle has been upheld, questioned, or overruled in later decisions. Its current authority or treatment is therefore uncertain.
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.
The right to change one's name is recognized as a fundamental right, but requires a civil court declaration and adherence to statutory regulations.
The right to change one's name is a fundamental right, but such changes do not retroactively alter educational records reflecting past identities.
The right to change one's name or date of birth in certificates is fundamental to identity, and restrictions imposed by CBSE's Byelaws are unconstitutional if they prevent legitimate corrections post....
Action of the concerned authority, is erroneous inasmuch as, the authority is obligated to undertake the exercise laid down by the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1969 read with Rule 11 of the....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
