JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER HARI SINGH vs C. B. S. E. (CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 286

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, B.R. GAVAI, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER HARI SINGH - APPELLANT
VERSUS
C.B.S.E. (CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION) & ORS. - RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 3905 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2019, Civil Appeal No(S). 1822 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO(S). 7381 of 2021)(@Diary No. 9445 of 2020), Civil Appeal No(S). 1823 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO(S). 7382 of 2021)(@Diary No. 9482 of 2020), Civil Appeal No(S). 1824 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO(S). 7383 of 2021)(@Diary No. 14737 of 2020), Civil Appeal No(S). 1825 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO(S). 7384 of 2021)(@Diary No. 16291 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1826 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 10927 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 10948 of 2020), Civil Appeal No(S). 1828 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO(S). 7385 of 2021)(@Diary No. 18711 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1829 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 10959 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1830 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 10801 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1831 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 10795 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1832 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 10796 of 2020), Civil Appeal No(S). 1833 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO(S). 7386 of 2021(@Diary No. 19181 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1834 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 11320 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1835 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 11558 of 2020), Civil Appeal No(S). 1836 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO(S). 7387 of 2021)(@Diary No. 21923 of 2020), Civil Appeal No(S). 1837 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO(S). 7388 of 2021)(@Diary No. 25053 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1838 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 15089 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1839 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 15124 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1840 of 2021(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15625 of 2020) and T.P. (C) Nos. 1139Â1140 of 2020
Decided on : 03-06-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sanjay Jain, Rupesh Kumar, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Nelam Sharma, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Alekshendra Sharma, Pravesh Bahuguna, Advocates
For the Respondent:Kiran Kumar Patra, Rupesh Kumar, Pahlad Singh Sharma, P. A. Noor Muhamed, Ms. Giffara S., Bilal Niamathulla, Ruxana P.N., Ram Lal Roy, G. Prakash, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Naresh Kumar, Renjith B. Marar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Ms. Biju Vigneswar, Ms. Surabhi Santosh, Arun Poomulli, Ms. Meera M., Anil Sharma, Somanatha Padhan, Mrs. Laila Sunil, Ashok Anand, Aabhas Parimal, Rakesh Kr. Singh, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Kumar Prashant, Ms. Vanya Gupta, Pramod Kumar Vishnoi, Harish Pandey, Siddhartha Jha, Advocates

Headnote:
Certificates - Name/surname/date of birth of candidates - Correction - Present case involves a batch of 22 petitions wherein questions relating to correction/change in name/surname/date of birth of candidates or their parents in the certificates issued by Board have been raised - Appellant in this case, has assailed the decision of High Court of Delhi, dated in W.P. (C) No., wherein High Court rejected the prayer for direction to the Board to carry out correction of her parents name in the marksheets issued by it - Appellants case was that name of her parents was incorrectly recorded as "Hari Singh Yadav" instead of "Hari Singh" (as recorded in identity documents of father) and "Mamta Yadav" instead of "Mamta" (as recorded in identity documents of mother) Relying upon Byelaw 69.1 of CBSE Examination Bye-laws, 2007, High Court affirmed decision of Board in refusing desired corrections/changes. – Held, in exercise of our plenary jurisdiction, Court direct CBSE to process applications for correction or change, as case may be, in certificate issued by it in the respective cases under consideration - Even other pending applications and future applications for such request be processed on the same lines and in particular the conclusion and directions recorded hitherto in paragraphs 170 and 171, as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant Byelaws - Additionally, CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant Byelaws so as to incorporate stated mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in certificates already issued or to be issued by it - Accordingly, Court dispose of the cases.

Judgement Key Points

Adoption is a legal process through which a person assumes the legal rights and responsibilities of a parent for a child who is not biologically their own. In the context of the principles discussed in the provided document, it is important to recognize that adoption results in a legal change in the identity and relationship of the child, which is typically recorded in official records and certificates.

The process of adoption involves formal legal procedures, including court approval and compliance with relevant laws and regulations, which establish the adoptive parent’s legal rights and the child's new legal identity. Once an adoption is legally recognized, the child's original legal identity, including their birth details, may be legally superseded or amended to reflect the adoptive relationship. This change is often reflected in official documents and certificates, which are considered authoritative and carry presumption of correctness (!) .

In relation to the correction or alteration of official records, including certificates issued by bodies such as the CBSE, the principles indicate that such records are foundational and carry a presumption of genuineness. Changes to these records, including those resulting from adoption, should be made following due legal procedures, including court orders or statutory provisions, and with appropriate verification of documents (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the rights of an individual to have their identity recognized and recorded accurately are protected under constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and personal identity. Any change in identity, such as through adoption, must be acknowledged and recorded in a manner that preserves the individual's dignity and legal rights, subject to reasonable restrictions and procedural safeguards to prevent misuse or confusion (!) (!) .

In summary, adoption leads to a legal change in identity that should be formally recorded through appropriate legal channels, respecting the presumption of correctness of official documents, and ensuring the individual's rights to identity and recognition are upheld in accordance with constitutional principles and procedural safeguards.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", said Juliet. This quote from William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" is unarguably one of the most iconic dialogues in classical literature. It conveys that the natural characteristics of an individual are more important than his/her artificial/acquired characteristics. A poetic statement as it certainly is, it does not go in tune with the significance of a name in marking the identity of an individual in his/her societal transactions. To put it differently, name is an intrinsic element of identity.

2. The seminal issue in these cases is: whether an individual's control over such cardinal element of identity could be denied to him/her by the Central Board of Secondary Education^[1][for short, "CBSE" or "Board", as the case may be] on the specious ground that its Examination Byelaws of 2007^[2][for short, "Byelaws"] must prevail over the claim of the candidate, which are merely intended to regulate such a claim and to delineate the procedure for correction/change in the contents of certificate (s) issued by it including regarding maintenance of its office records?

3. The CBSE Examination Byelaws restrict, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the corrections/changes that can be carried out in the certificates issued by the Board. Various students with need-based requests approached different High Courts resulting into inconsistent outcomes leading up to this batch of appeals. Apart from the fact that the judgments have produced conflicting outcomes, the petitions raise some peculiar questions on the constitutional validity of CBSE Examination Byelaws (as amended from time to time) and interpretation thereof.

4. The present case involves a batch of 22 petitions wherein questions relating to correction/change in name/surname/date of birth of candidates or their parents in the certificates issued by the Board have been raised.

5. In order to identify the precise scope of challenge, we may now delineate the factual matrix in individual petitions.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3905 OF 2011

6. The appellant in this case, Ms. Jigya Yadav, has assailed the decision of the High Court of Delhi, dated 20.12.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3774/2010, wherein the High Court rejected the prayer for direction to the Board to carry out correction of her parents' name in the marksheets issued by it. The appellant's case was that the name of her parents was incorrectly recorded as "Hari Singh Yadav" instead of "Hari Singh" (as recorded in the identity documents of father) and "Mamta Yadav" instead of "Mamta" (as recorded in the identity documents of mother). Relying upon Byelaw 69.1 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, 2007, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Board in refusing the desired corrections/changes. The Court relied upon the nursery application form, school admission form and stream allotment form for class XI filled by the parents of the appellant to conclude that the errors were not inadvertent, and they had consciously chosen and retained the said names despite having opportunity to rectify before the Xth standard. It observed thus:

"15. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that despite the parents of the petitioner having mentioned their names as "Hari Singh" and "Mamta" in the petitioner's birth certificate, they have consciously and consistently chosen to record their names as "Hari Singh Yadav" and "Mamta Yadav" in the school record. Consequently, we are of the opinion that this Court in the present petition should not deal with the challenge of constitutional validity as it is the petitioner's parents who are at fault and the error, if any, has been repeated on a number of occasions by the petitioner's parents themselves. In fact, we are of the view that for the fault of the petitioner's parents, the impugned Bye-law of the respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document