Right to Change Religion in School Records is a Fundamental Right under Article 25; Authority for DOB Change Can Also Change Religion: Kerala High Court - 2025-06-27

Right to Change Religion in School Records is a Fundamental Right, Same Authority for DOB Change Can Effect It: Kerala HC

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has affirmed that the right to have one's chosen religion reflected in official documents like the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) is an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. Justice D. K. Singh held that the authority empowered to correct the date of birth in school records is also competent to effect changes in name and religion, directing educational authorities to process such applications.

Case Background

The writ petition was filed by Sudhin Krishna C.S. , a 32-year-old man who was named Mohammed Riyazudeen C.S. at birth. Born to a Muslim father and a Hindu mother, his name and religion were entered as 'Islam' in his school records by his father.

The petitioner argued that after attaining majority, he chose to practice the Hindu religion, in which he was raised by his mother. He formalized this by obtaining a conversion certificate from the Arya Samajam in 2021 and publishing a Gazette notification for his name and religion change in 2022. However, when he applied to the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, to update his SSLC book, his application was rejected on the grounds that there was "no provision in KER 1959, to effect the changes in the religion in the School Leaving Certificate."

Arguments in Court

The petitioner’s counsel, Santheep Ankarath , contended that the authorities' refusal was a clear violation of Rule 3(1), Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), which explicitly provides for the alteration of a pupil's name, religion, and date of birth. He also cited previous High Court judgments that had settled this issue in favour of the applicants.

The Government Pleader, representing the state, argued that while the Commissioner of Examination was notified as the competent authority to alter the date of birth, the government had not notified any specific authority for changing religion or caste. However, the pleader did not dispute that the legal issue was covered by the precedents cited by the petitioner.

Court's Constitutional and Statutory Analysis

Justice D. K. Singh rejected the government's technical argument, providing a robust interpretation of both statutory rules and constitutional principles.

On Kerala Education Rules (KER): The Court noted that Rule 3(1) of Chapter VI of KER, titled "Alteration of Date of Birth etc.", unambiguously includes the alteration of "the name of a pupil, his religion and his date of birth". The judgment emphasized the absurdity of having separate authorities for changes listed within the same rule.

"There can’t be multiple authorities for effecting the changes in date of birth, caste and religion. When the Statutory Rule prescribes the provision for effecting the changes of the date of birth, religion and caste etc, the same authority, who has been notified by the Government... will be empowered to effect changes in date of birth, caste and religion, etc."

On Fundamental Rights under Article 25: The Court firmly grounded the petitioner’s right in the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. Citing the Preamble and Article 25, the judgment underscored that every citizen has the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate a religion of their choice, provided it is done without coercion, fraud, or undue influence.

"The Constitution of India gives freedom to the citizens of India of their conscience, faith and religion... If a person has changed his religion without any coercion, fraud, undue influence etc, such an act would be protected under the Constitution of India... He has the fundamental right to practice religion and faith as of his choice."

The Court referenced several Supreme Court landmark judgments, including Sarla Mudgal and Lily Thomas , to reinforce that the freedom of religion is a core tenet of the Indian constitutional scheme, protecting an individual's right to their chosen faith.

Final Decision

Finding no substance in the government's defense, the High Court allowed the writ petition. It set aside the communication rejecting the petitioner’s application and directed the respondents to make the requested changes to the petitioner's name and religion in his SSLC book.

The judgment clarifies that the failure of the government to separately notify an authority for changing religion in school records cannot be a reason to deny a citizen's fundamental right. The ruling establishes a clear precedent that the existing designated authority for correcting dates of birth is also empowered to handle changes in name and religion.