FACTS OF THE CASE
- The facts of the case entail that the petitioner, Rayaan Singh, is a 3rd year student at Hindu College pursuing B.A.(Hons) Philosophy. He is a 20-year old individual born on 30.06.2000, he was named 'Rayaan Singh' by his parents, Ms. Payal Chawla and Mr. Mandeep Singh and passed out 10th and 12th from Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi that is affiliated to CBSE.
- ' Rayaan Singh' was the name mentioned on his certificates that were issued by CBSE for 10th and 12th class. In the case, the petitioner wanted to change his name from Rayaan Singh to Rayaan Chawla as he was raised by his mother and maternal grandparents. In the year 2007, his parents separated and his father had given up his natural guardianship.
OPPOSITION FROM DU OFFICIALS
- The application was returned from DU officials stating there was non-compliance with the notification that dated on 1.07.2015 read with the the notification dated from 16.12.15 which stated that it was mandatory for students who desire to seek name change to get their name changed from CBSE/other State Boards first. However, CBSE considers the option of name change only before publication of result of candidate. Hence, the petitioner had approached the court.
- DU also stated that since CBSE was a statutory body whose resolutions have force of law, hence getting his name changed first was a compulsory compliance that had to be followed. Furthermore, they stated that since his parents got divorced in 2015 and while he had appeared for his board exams he was in knowledge of the same.
JUDGEMENT OF HC
The Delhi High Court held that in the case of Kailash Gupta v. CBSE, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1590, "to have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) as well as right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be denied that the right to change a name is a protected right and the petitioner would normally be not denied the said right on to change a name is a protected right and the petitioner would normally be not denied the said right on technical issues."
Furthermore, the court relied on Abhishek Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3459, and held the matter in favour of petitioner stating that the demand that was made by DU is misplaced in it’s nature and would create discrepancy and further reflect a status that did not exist at the issuance of original certificates and hence the change of name would not be a retrospective effect.
