The court upheld minors' rights to change their surname for emotional wellbeing and identity consistency, overriding prohibitive regulations by emphasizing best interests.

.......…………for Respondent No. 3 JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1. The petitioner, a minor represented through her mother and natural guardian, has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the communication dated 5.5.2025, whereby her application dated 17.2.2025, seeking change of her surname from ‘Chatterjee’ to ‘Bhattacharya’ was rejected by the respondent municipality.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born on 14.4.2011 to Mr. Prasenjit Chatterjee and Ms. Kasturi Chatterjee during the subsistence of their wedlock. A birth certificate was issued by the municipality. The petitioner is presently a student of class IX. Following matrimonial discord between her parents, she has been residing with her mother at her maternal grand-parent’s residence. The marriage between the parties was subsequently dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 13.5.2015. Post divorce, both the petitioner and her mother adopted the surname ‘Bhattacharya’ in place of ‘Chatterjee’. Consequently, in certain documents, the petitioner’s surname is recorded as ‘Bhattacharya’, whereas in others it continues to appear as ‘Chatterjee’.

3. The petitioner submits that desiring not to retain her father’s surname, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17.2.2025 before the respondent corporation, seeking correction of her surname in the birth certificate. However, the said application was rejected by the respondent corporation by a communication dated 5.5.2025, citing the reason that such a change of surname in the birth certificate is not permissible merely on account of change of marital status of the parents.

4. Since the petitioner is a minor girl, aged about 14 years and that her father was initially not impleaded as a party to the present proceeding, this court directed the petitioner to implead her father as a party to the present proceeding. Accordingly, Mr. Prasenjit Chatterjee, the father of the petitioner was made as a party to the proceeding.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has effected service upon Mr. Prasenjit Chatterjee by Speed Post on 04.07.2025 at his last known address, as well as through publication in two newspapers, namely ‘The Times of India’ and ‘Ei Samay’. Copies of the said publications have been filed on record, thereby evidencing service upon the respondent-father

6. In view of such publication this court deems service to be complete on the respondent father.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that as per Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and upon the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated December 29, 2014, which mention that once the name of the child is entered in the birth certificate, it cannot be changed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 15 does not an absolute bar and that a co-ordinate Bench of this court, in a similarly situated case, has directed for correction of the birth certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this court in WPA 88 of 2023 titled as Arpita Chowdhary V. Nabadwip Municipality & Anr.

9. This court has heard arguments advanced by the parties and examined the documents placed on record.

10. Upon careful perusal of the records, it transpires that the petitioner is a minor girl aged about 14 years and is currently studying in class IX, and has been residing with her mother since birth. The marriage between her biological parents were dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the competent court on 13.5.2015. Following the said dissolution o