The court affirmed the necessity for gazette publication for name changes while prohibiting corrections to religious identifiers in official records.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2023 in OS No.6539/2021 on the file of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration and mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to change the religion and name of the plaintiffs in the records maintained by them.

2. Brief facts:

Plaintiff No.1, the mother of plaintiff No.2, is originally a Hindu by caste converted to Islam in 2017 and assumed the name as ‘Zara S’ after having married Faayes Kunju, and their marriage was registered before the Waqf Board. From the wedding plaintiff No.2 was born and her name was ‘Mehar Faayes’. It is stated that after divorce by Khulanama in the year 2020, plaintiff No.1 reverted to Hinduism and resumed the name of ‘Vani S.’ So also she sought to change her daughter's religion to Hinduism and rename her ‘Toshani.V’. Notices are published in newspaper and affidavit, however the BBMP insisted on a Court decree before altering the records.

3. The defendants raised a plea of not maintainability of the suit and notice under Section 80 CPC was improper and proper course was under Section 482 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The specific plea of the defendants was that only clerical errors can be corrected under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Act’), major corrections like religion and father's name are beyond jurisdiction.

4. The Trial Court upon appreciation held that the plaintiffs did not publish conversion/re-conversion in Central Government Gazette, which is a mandatory step. Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to declare or alter caste/religion records and remedy lies with the competent authorities. Further, held that the plaintiffs’ evidence did not establish legal compliance for official record change and correction of religion or father's name is not a clerical error, but a substantive alteration, outside Civil Court's scope. By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents-State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court erred in holding gazette publication as mandatory, without citing any statutory basis for such a requirement. It is urged that inRFA No.644/2019 in the case ofYathish Kumar Vs. The Commissioner and Others, this Court decreed the suit for change of name even in the absence of gazette notification or newspaper notification, recognizing that the name is a matter of individual identity. Reliance is also placed on the decision inRFA No.322/2023, Gunda Naika vs State of Karnataka and Others wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed rectification of the name of school and birth records, acknowledging the prejudice to a student if such correction is denied. It is further submitted that plaintiff No.2, a minor, is seriously prejudiced and her school authorities insist on change in the birth certificate before effecting correction in their records. Non-correction of her credentials would affect her education, future admission and examination records. It is submitted that while the correction of name is sought, they concede that the change of religion cannot be effected through a civil decree as it is outside the scope of the Act.

7. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit, as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to