MANU/SC/0362/2021Equivalent Citation: AIR2021SC4775, (2021)7SCC535

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3905 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2019, Civil Appeal No.
1822/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7381 of 2021 (Arising out of Diary No. 9445 of
2020)), Civil Appeal No. 1823/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7382 of 2021 (Arising
out of Diary No. 9482 of 2020)), Civil Appeal No. 1824/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No. 7383 of 2021 (Arising out of Diary No. 14737 of 2020)), Civil Appeal No.
1825/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7384 of 2021 (Arising out of Diary No. 16291
of 2020)), Civil Appeal No. 1826/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10927 of 2020),
Civil Appeal No. 1827/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10948 of 2020), Civil Appeal
No. 1828/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7385 of 2021 (Arising out of Diary No.
18711 of 2020)), Civil Appeal No. 1829/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10959 of
2020), Civil Appeal No. 1830/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10801 of 2020), Civil
Appeal No. 1831/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10795 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.
1832/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10796 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1833/2021
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7386 of 2021 (Arising out of Diary No. 19181 of 2020)),
Civil Appeal No. 1834/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11320 of 2020), Civil Appeal
No. 1835/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11558 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.
1836/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7387 of 2021 (Arising out of Diary No. 21923
of 2020)), Civil Appeal No. 1837/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7388 of 2021
(Arising out of Diary No. 25053 of 2020)), Civil Appeal No. 1838/2021 (Arising out of
S.L.P. (C) No. 15089 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1839/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No. 15124 of 2020), Civil Appeal No. 1840/2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15625 of
2020) and T.P. (C) Nos. 1139-1140 of 2020
Decided On: 03.06.2021
Appellants: Jigya Yadav (Minor) through Gurdian/Father Hari Singh
Vs.
Respondent: C.B.S.E. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sanjay Jain, Rupesh Kumar, AORs, Rajeev Sharma,
Neelam Sharma, Pankhuri Shrivastava, Alekshendra Sharma and Pravesh Bahuguna,
Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Kiran Kumar Patra, Rupesh Kumar, Pahlad Singh Sharma,
P.A. Noor Muhamed, AORs, Giffara S., Bilal Niamathulla, Ruxana P.N., Advs., Ram Lal
Roy, AOR, G. Prakash, Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, Advs., Jishnu M.L., Naresh
Kumar, AORs, Renjith B. Marar, Adv., Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR, Biju Vigneswar, Surabhi
Santosh, Arun Poomulli, Meera M., Anil Sharma, Advs., Somanatha Padhan, AOR, Laila
Sunil, Ashok Anand, Aabhas Parimal, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs., Archana Pathak Dave,
AOR, Kumar Prashant, Vanya Gupta, Pramod Kumar Vishnoi, Advs., Harish Pandey and
Siddhartha Jha, AORs
Case Category:
ACADEMIC MATTERS
Case Note:

11-01-2023 (Page 1 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

Education - Corrections/ Changes in Board Certificates - Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) Examination Byelaws, 2007 (Byelaws) -
Constitutional validity thereof - Whether Byelaws prescribing mode and
processes consistent with law and thus valid?
Facts:
The present matter pertains to CBSE Examination Byelaws restricting, 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. The petitions raisedpeculiar
questions on the constitutional validity of CBSE Examination Byelaws (as
amended from time to time) and interpretation thereof.
Held, while dismissing the Appeal:
In the case of "correction" in the certificate issued by the CBSE to be made
consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records, CBSE not to
turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period
of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to
maintain its record under the extant Regulations. While doing so, it can
certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent as
directed.[170]
As regards request for "change" of particulars in the certificate issued by the
CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE
certificate are not consistent with the school records. Such a request could be
made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents
like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate
change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is
when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later
point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining
to the candidate.(a) Reverting to the first category, there is a legal
presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act.
Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note
of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change
in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but
subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may
be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing
declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in
lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public
Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in
the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original
certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the
applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and
caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of
name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on
which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the
fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change
along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change
of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten); (b) However, in the

11-01-2023 (Page 2 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new
acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that
request may be entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by
a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including
surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the
case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. This is so
because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to
verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.[171]
CBSE to process applications for correction or change, as the case may be, in
the 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, as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant Byelaws.
Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant
Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recording correction or
change, as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued
by it.[172]

JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1 . "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 Education1 on the specious ground that its Examination Byelaws of 20072
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.

11-01-2023 (Page 3 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

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 No. 1 cannot be set aside...
The Court, however, made an avoidable observation that in a country with caste-based
reservations, changes in name cannot be permitted readily. It noted thus:
17. We are also of the view that in a country where there is reservation on
caste and religious grounds, change of names of parents or ward's name cannot
be allowed at the drop of the hat.
The Court then observed that Byelaw 69.1 permits CBSE to carry out corrections only to
the extent of bringing the record in conformity with the school record. In paragraph 21,
the Court noted thus:
21. Even if one were to apply the aforesaid test one finds that the Respondent
No. 1 essentially records what has been mentioned in the school records
consistently and that too, upto Class X, that means, for more than 10 years the
child and/or her parents have the liberty to rectify the record. Consequently, we
are of the opinion that the impugned Bye-law is perfectly reasonable.
While concluding, the Court observed that the Courts must be wary of interfering in
academic matters and should refrain from giving an expansive interpretation to
statutory rules/byelaws as it may render the system unworkable. It noted in paragraph
22:
22. Moreover, we are of the view that the Court should be extremely reluctant
to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to
academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men
possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working
of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be

11-01-2023 (Page 4 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 wholly wrong for the Court to take a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to
the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root
problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the
consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a
pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court
should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a
statutory provision, Rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of
rendering the system unworkable in practice-as contended by the Respondent
No. 1 in its counter affidavit.
7 . Assailing the decision, the Appellant contends that Byelaw 69.1 (after 2007
amendment) is invalid as being unreasonable and arbitrary, thereby violative of Article
14 of the Constitution, as it puts a blanket embargo on corrections other than those
which are necessary for bringing the documents in conformity with the school record. It
is contended that the amended byelaw does not address the possibility of error in the
school record itself, and leaves the student with no opportunity to correct the error
committed by the parents in the school records. To buttress this submission, the
Appellant has submitted that the resultant hardship caused to her is infringement of her
right guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g), right to freely express one's identity as per Article
19(1)(a) and right to dignity in Article 21 of the Constitution.
8. In the written submissions, the Appellant has urged that CBSE certificates are public
records of the Board and they carry a presumption of genuineness which must be
respected by preserving the accuracy of such certificates. It is further urged that the
2007 Byelaws place school records above public documents which carry presumption of
genuineness under the Indian Evidence Act, 18723. To buttress this submission, it is
stated that it would be contrary to the objectives of CBSE if it refuses to correct its
documents despite having verified the genuineness of the supporting public documents
(like Aadhar card, Passport, Birth Certificate etc.) and continues to perpetuate the
obvious errors in the school records.
9 . The Appellant has further submitted that by amending Byelaw 69.1 in this manner,
CBSE has acted in violation of Regulation 10 and objectives of CBSE by rendering itself
incapable of rectifying errors in the certificates and issuing accurate certificates, which
is a basic function of the Board. The CBSE has, the Appellant submitted, exceeded its
powers by effecting the said amendment as it was never meant to exercise such
authority of putting fetters on its basic duties. Reliance has been placed upon Dhruva
Parate v. CBSE and Anr. MANU/DE/4597/2009 : ILR 2009 V Delhi 371, State of NCT of
Delhi and Anr. v. Sanjeev @ Bittoo MANU/SC/0257/2005 : 2005 (5) SCC 181, Indian
Aluminium Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board MANU/SC/0310/1975 : 1975 (2)
SCC 414 and J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
MANU/SC/0294/1991 : 1991 (2) SCC 283 to urge that CBSE cannot circumscribe its
own powers with a self-imposed limitation in this manner.
1 0 . The Appellant has further submitted that the impugned judgment erroneously
connects the subject matter of the case with caste-based reservations which displays
stereotype prejudice of the Court towards her cause. The Appellant also takes exception
to the observations regarding wrongful conduct of the Appellant's parents in failing to
get the records rectified before Xth standard. It is stated that the impugned judgment
overlooked the fact that the parents had no choice of getting the application form
corrected in XIth standard as it necessarily reflected the details of Xth standard without
offering a choice of alteration.

11-01-2023 (Page 5 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

11. In response, the Board has relied upon Byelaw 69.1 to submit that the Appellant's
request for rectification was considered and the certificates were found to be matching
with the school records and thus, no case for rectification was made out. It is submitted
that before amendment Byelaw 69.1 permitted a different procedure for rectification-
approval by Court of law and notification in the gazette. Under this procedure, umpteen
number of cases were filed, even after more than ten years of declaration of result, for
rectification of name/surname and Courts were constantly approached for seeking leave
to get the rectification done. As a result, objections were raised by various government
authorities questioning the power of the Board to carry out changes in the identity of
the students even after they have passed the examinations conducted by the Board. It is
submitted that various Courts also expressed displeasure and suggested rephrasing of
Byelaw 69.1. Resultantly, the 2007 amendment was effected permitting corrections only
to the extent of bringing the certificates in conformity with the school record.
1 2 . To buttress the above submission, it is urged that CBSE, being an autonomous
society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has the power to make,
amend or delete its Rules, Regulations and Byelaws. Accordingly, Byelaw 69.1 was
amended as the basic record of a student is kept by the school and the Board has no
option but to rely upon the school record. It is further submitted that the parents of the
Appellant had ample opportunity to correct the school record and they chose not to do
so. In fact, the Respondent adds, they repeatedly filled the same particulars of their
names in all the school forms from time to time.
13. The Board has also filed elaborate written submissions to support their case. It is
submitted that the Examination Byelaws of the Board are statutory in nature as they
were framed in furtherance of the powers granted to the Board as per Government of
India Resolution dated 1.7.1929 and deviation cannot be permitted from the Byelaws.
As regards the argument of violation of fundamental rights, the Board has submitted
that there may be a fundamental right to be identified as per the choice of an individual,
but there can be no fundamental right to claim that the changed identity must be
operative since birth thereby compelling all including statutory bodies to carry out
changes in documents issued by them. It is urged that any other view would amount to
misuse of liberty and cause serious confusion at different level. Reliance has been
placed upon Rayaan Chawla v. University of Delhi and Anr. MANU/DE/1983/2020 : 275
(2020) Delhi Law Times 314 to support this position.
14. The Board has further submitted that the restrictions/conditions for change of name
and date of birth are reasonable as all the details are supplied by the students/parents
at various stages of admissions which offers a prima facie guarantee of genuineness. It
is submitted that change of name and date of birth in a reckless manner could have
serious repercussions-misuse for employment, manipulating age of the Accused etc.
Reliance has been placed upon Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
MANU/SC/0967/2019 : (2019) 12 SCC 370 to illustrate this.
1 5 . The written submissions also touch upon the question of relevant date for the
applicability of 2007 Byelaws. It is submitted that the relevant date would be the date of
passing Xth standard examination and not the date of making application for changes.
Lastly, it is submitted that the remedy of writ petition may not be appropriate for
effecting changes in CBSE certificates as usually, students come up with independent
documents for supporting their claim and the writ Courts are not expected to adjudicate
disputed facts concerning the relied upon documents. To buttress this submission, it is
stated that despite presumption in favour of certified copies of public documents, they
cannot be accepted at face value without providing an opportunity to rebut them as per

11-01-2023 (Page 6 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

Section 4 of the 1872 Act.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3572 OF 2019
1 6 . In this appeal, the Appellant (CBSE) has assailed the judgment dated 6.2.2019
passed by the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. No. 128/2017, reversing the order of
learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6996/2016, wherein the prayer of the Respondent
(father of the student) to change the mother's name in the certificate was rejected. The
Respondent had applied to CBSE for the change of mother's name from "Kiran Khan" to
"Fakiha Khan" stating that "Kiran Khan", being the nickname of the mother, was
inadvertently recorded in the school record of the student at the time of her admission
in class I in 2005.
1 7 . The Division Bench granted the prayer primarily on the ground that the stated
change was a mere correction of name and not a change of name per se as per the
language of Rules 69.1(i) and 69.1(ii) of the Byelaws (as amended in 2015). To reach
this conclusion, the Court relied upon the birth certificate of the student, educational
certificates of mother, passport etc. which revealed that the mother's name was
recorded as "Fakiha Khan" in all these documents and it was nothing but an inadvertent
error on the part of parents to have used the nickname of the mother while filling her
school forms. The High Court noted that the case is neither a change of name as per
Rule 69.1(i) nor a correction of typographical nature as per Rule 69.1(ii). It is relevant
to reproduce paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:
4 . Having considered the diverse aspects and the admitted factual conspectus
on record, we find, the case in hand, is not a case of any change of name, but,
a mere correction in the mother's name of the child Ms. Filza Khan. Apparently,
an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the mother's nickname "Ms. Kiran Khan"
in the admission form in the year 2005, got transmitted by the Respondent No.
2 school to the Respondent No. 1 Board. The application made by the Petitioner
was not for any change of name, but, for correction of an inadvertent mistake
in mentioning the name of the mother in the admission form as "Kiran Khan"
instead of "Fakiha Khan", which fact, undisputedly, finds support from the birth
certificate dated 17.12.02, copy whereof forms part of the record as Annexure-
P1. This birth certificate clearly mentions that Ms. Filza Khan was born to the
Petitioner and Ms. Fakiha Khan. The applicant has placed on record other
documents, such as the educational certificates of the mother Fakiha Khan, her
passport etc., which show that her name always was Fakiha Khan. Thus, it is
not a case of change of name of the mother to Kiran Khan, from Fakiha Khan,
post the filling up of the examination form of the Appellant's daughter.
Pertinently, even in the documents relating to the daughter of the Appellant
Filza Khan, such as her Birth Certificate, the name of the mother is recorded as
"Fakiha Khan" and not "Kiran Khan". Thus, the case in hand is certainly not a
case of change of name as contemplated Under Rule 69.1(i). It is also not a
case of correction in spelling errors and factual typographical errors as
contemplated Under Rule 69.1(ii). The case in hand is completely founded on
the premise of an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of the mother in
the admission form, which was filled way back in the year 2005 at the time of
admission of the child in class-I. ...
The Court, relying upon Mazhar Saleem Chandroth (Minor) Thr. Saleem Chandroth
(father and natural guardian) v. Central Board of Secondary Education4, also observed
that the Examination Byelaws of the Appellant (CBSE) are not of a statutory nature. The

11-01-2023 (Page 7 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

Court, before parting, further noted that a restrictive and strict approach is not
warranted in matters involving correction or change of name by the Board merely on
ground of administrative inconvenience. It noted thus:
6. The adoption of a strict and restrictive approach in the matter of change or
correction of name of the candidate or his/her parents, in the certificates issued
by the Respondent No. 1, cannot be justified on the foundation that such
changes, when made later, may be exploited to mislead all concerned about the
identity of the candidate. Such a strict and restrictive approach cannot be
justified merely on the ground of some administrative inconvenience. After all,
Respondent No. 1 charges the fee to cover its costs for undertaking such an
exercise....
Observing that the subject change in the mother's name would not result into an
alteration of identity of the student as the name "Fakiha Khan" was a part of the
documents all along, it noted thus:
6....In the present case, there is no possibility of the identity of the candidate
Filza Khan being changed by permitting the change of name of her mother from
"Kiran Khan" to Fakiha Khan", since the name of the child/candidate; the name
of the father; the date and place of birth, continue to remain the same. Even
the name of the mother-which is now sought to be brought on record, is the
real name of the mother which has always remained so and the same name of
the mother is also reflected in the Birth Certificate of the child/candidate Filza
Khan. In fact, the non-amendment of the name of the mother of the
child/candidate from "Kiran Khan" to "Fakiha Khan" would, in future, lead to
confusion and may mar the future prospects of the child/candidate while
seeking admissions to institutions of higher education, or employment.
18. The Appellant (CBSE), in this appeal, has submitted that the impugned judgment
has incorrectly treated the subject change in mother's name as a mere correction born
out of an inadvertent error. It is submitted that the said change is a complete change of
name which was continuously retained in the school records for a period of 11 years. It
is urged that the impugned judgment has failed to give effect to Rules 69.1(i) and
69.1(ii) of the Board as such change of name without an order of the Court and
followed by a notification in the official gazette was outrightly prohibited. Justifying the
said Rules, it is submitted that the Board has no power or independent sources to verify
the identity of the students and owing to the nature of its functioning, it has to rely
upon the school records to furnish certificates.
19. The Appellant (CBSE) further submits that the records were sent by the school in
the academic year 2014-2015 when the student filled the examination form for
submission to the Board and the said form not only recorded the mother's name as
"Kiran Khan" but also carried the signature of the mother in the verification portion of
the form. To buttress this submission, it is urged that the said mistake (if any) could
not have been treated as inadvertent as it was retained as such for a long period of 11
years. It is added that parents themselves were the source of information regarding the
name and thus, there could be no reason to regard it as inadvertent.
20. The Appellant has further submitted that the impugned judgment is in conflict with
another judgment of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in Mazhar Saleem
Chandroth4 wherein the prayer for addition of word "Saleem" in the name was not held
to be a correction or typographical error and was rejected stating that such change

11-01-2023 (Page 8 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

would be inconsistent with the school record and thus, impermissible. It is added that
in such a situation, the Division bench ought to have sent the matter for consideration
by a larger bench.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 1822/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s) 7381/2021 (@ Diary No.
9445/2020)
21. In this appeal, the Appellant (CBSE) has assailed the judgment dated 5.11.2019
passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2225/2019 affirming the decision of
learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5287/2019 dated 28.2.2019. The Respondent
student had approached the Board for correction of his father's name in the CBSE
certificate from "P.P. Abdul Latheef" to Latheef P.A.". The said request was denied by
the Board citing Byelaw 69.1 of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. The Board stated that
the Respondent's case does not meet the conditions stipulated in the said byelaw and
thus, change in name cannot be permitted. Aggrieved by this denial, the Respondent
moved the High Court. The correction or change of name was then permitted by the
High Court upon payment of Rs. 5,000 by the student to the Board for availing its
service. The Board appealed against that decision. Affirming the decision, the High
Court observed that the decision is in accordance with the decision of a co-ordinate
bench of the same High Court in Subin Mohammed v. Union of India
MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340 wherein a change in date of birth of a student
was permitted by the Court. While recognising that the case at hand involved the
change of father's name (and not date of birth), the Court noted the similarity of
grounds raised by the Appellant before it, and relied upon Subin Mohammed
MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340 to reject the same. It observed thus:
6. Though the issue relates to correction of the Petitioner's father's name in the
CBSE certificate, the grounds on which the Appellants had assailed the
correctness of the judgment of the writ court are more or less similar, based on
the bye-law of the CBSE and the delay in making the application for correction.
Except the above, there is no variance. Though Mr. Nirmal S., learned Counsel
for the Appellants, made submissions on the grounds extracted supra assailing
the correctness of judgment of the writ court, we are not inclined to accept the
said contentions for the reason that a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
Subin Mohammed S. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in
MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340, has considered the said contentions
and rejected the same....
2 2 . The impugned judgment relied upon the Respondent's Birth Certificate dated
25.7.2013 and his father's Death certificate dated 12.8.2009 to conclude that the
father's name was indeed "Latheef P.A." in statutory records and there could be no
objection in permitting the said change.
23. In its challenge, the primary ground of the Appellant is that the reliance placed by
the High Court upon Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340 is
misplaced. For, the said judgment is inapplicable in the factual matrix of the case. It is
submitted that in Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340, the case
involved a change in date of birth and the Court had recorded a specific finding that
CBSE Byelaws would not permit the said change. It is further submitted that the Court
failed to acknowledge that CBSE Byelaws, though not strictly statutory, have a
regulatory colour and must bind those who have chosen to comply with them while
participating in the examinations conducted by the Board.

11-01-2023 (Page 9 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

24. The Appellant has further submitted that neither Byelaw 69.1(i) nor 69.1(ii) apply
to the facts of the case. It is stated that Byelaw 69.1(i) would apply only when change
of name is approved by a Court of law followed by a notification in the official gazette,
that too before the declaration of result by the Board. To buttress this submission, it is
added that the Respondent obtained his birth certificate in 2013, one year before the
matriculation examination in 2014 and thus, there was no difficulty for the Respondent
in applying for the said change as per Byelaw 69.1(i). According to the Appellant
(CBSE), the conditions of the aforesaid Byelaws have not been fulfilled by the
Respondent and in absence thereof, no such changes can be permitted.
2 5 . The Appellant has also urged that the reliance upon Birth Certificate and Death
Certificate is unwarranted as both these documents were not proved before any Court of
law and there is no material on record to establish that "P.P. Abdul Latheef" and
"Latheef P.A." is the same person. The Appellant has placed reliance upon Board of
Secondary Education of Assam v. Md. Sarifuz Zaman and Ors. MANU/SC/1101/2003 :
(2003) 12 SCC 408 to further argue that correction of entries in a certificate duly issued
by the Board cannot be claimed as a matter of legal right and frequent corrections
cannot be permitted readily as it would have the effect of rendering this power
arbitrary, in addition to reducing the credibility of certificates issued by the Board.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1823/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7382/2021 (@ Diary No.
9482/2020)
26. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 20.11.2019 of the Kerala
High Court in W.A. No. 2354/2019 affirming the decision of learned Single Judge in
W.P. No. 11876/2018, wherein the Respondent student's prayer for change in date of
birth was granted by the Court. The Respondent passed her matriculation examination
in 2011. The concerned certificate issued by the Board recorded her date of birth as
28.11.1995. Thereafter, in 2013, the Respondent applied for the issuance of Birth
Certificate which was issued on 28.6.2013 bearing her date of birth as 21.11.1995.
27. The Respondent applied to the Board for change in date of birth. It was rejected by
the Board. The High Court allowed her prayer after placing reliance on Subin
Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340. The observations of the High
Court are similar to those in civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021
(@Diary No. 9445/2020) and are not being discussed again for brevity.
28. The Appellant (CBSE) has assailed the decision on the ground that the Respondent's
case does not fulfil the criteria/conditions for change in date of birth under Byelaws
69.2 and 69.3 of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. It is submitted that as per Byelaw
69.2, change in date of birth is permissible only before the same is recorded in the
record of the Board and despite having sufficient time, the Respondent did not approach
the Board for any correction on or before 2011. Afterwards, under Byelaw 69.3,
corrections of merely typographical or other similar errors are permissible to bring the
particulars in consonance with the school record. It is stated that the Respondent's case
does not fulfil any of these criteria.
29. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without granting an
opportunity to the Appellant for ascertaining the genuineness of the request for change
in date of birth, which is a mandatory requirement as per Subin Mohammed
MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340. The Appellant has raised a question on the
genuineness of the request by stating that even if the incorrect date of birth is treated
as an error, it is inconceivable that the Appellant or her parents could not notice the

11-01-2023 (Page 10 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

error for a period of 23 years.
30. The submissions regarding the inapplicability of the dictum in Subin Mohammed
MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340 are similar to those made in civil appeal
arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/2020) and are not being
repeated for brevity.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1824/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7383/2021 (@ Diary No.
14737/2020)
31. In this appeal, the Appellant (CBSE) has assailed the judgment dated 13.12.2019
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No. 838/2019 confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 18013/2018 in terms of the Byelaws (as amended in 2015 and as applicable
to the case).
32. The case involves a request for change of mother's name of the student in CBSE
certificates from "Seema Manak" to "Sanyogeta Manak". The Respondent participated in
the matriculation examination conducted by the Board in May, 2016. In October, 2016,
the said request was made when the mother changed her name. The Board denied the
request for change of name citing their inability under the Byelaws. Another request was
made by the Respondent which was met with the same response from the Board. The
matter went to the High Court by way of a writ petition and the Court granted the prayer
for change of name by holding that the Board failed to perform its duty in denying the
request for change of name. The Court took note of the birth certificate of the
Respondent, copy of passport and copy of Aadhar card of the mother, and also noted
that the requirements of newspaper publication and gazette notification were fulfilled. It
then directed the Board to effect the change. The Court observed that the CBSE Rules
cannot prohibit an individual from having his/her identity recognized through the
parents and if they are applied for denying such corrections, it would be ultra vires the
Rules as they are not statutory in nature. It observed thus:
In the opinion of this Court such Rules framed by CBSE go contrary to the basic
principles laid down in the circumstances regarding individual to have his
identity recognized from his/her parents, the CBSE cannot be allowed to force
any individual to have his mother's name or his father's name different from
what his/her mother's name or father's name is known in the Society as well as
in the records. If such Rules are applied for denying a candidate from getting
correction done in the mark sheet or certificates, the same have to be declared
as ultra vires to the Rules since the Rules not statutory.
33. In order to assail the above decision, the Appellant has relied upon Byelaws 69.1(i)
and 69.1(ii) to contend that Byelaw 69.1(i) provides for change of name of the student
only and change of name of parents is not envisaged in it. It is submitted that Byelaw
69.1(ii) provides for corrections and the present case is not one of corrections, rather, it
involves a material change of name. Similar to the submissions advanced in previous
appeals, it is submitted that the Board cannot act in violation of their byelaws and
permit corrections when the same are not permitted under them. The Appellant has
urged that they duly applied their mind to the request of the Respondent twice and
there was no occasion for the Court to pass an order in complete ignorance of the
byelaws.
34. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment holds the byelaws as ultra vires
despite the fact that their validity was not even in question before the Court. Reliance

11-01-2023 (Page 11 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

has been placed by the Appellant upon Md. Sarifuz Zaman MANU/SC/1101/2003 :
(2003) 12 SCC 408 to urge that there is no vested right to claim corrections in
certificates at any point of time.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1825/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7384/2021 (@ Diary No.
16291/2020)
35. The challenge in this appeal is against the decision dated 20.11.2019 passed by the
High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2340/2019 confirming the order passed by learned
Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 8540/2019, wherein the High Court allowed the prayer for
change of the Respondent student's name from "Mohammed Shafeek" to "Mohammed
Shafeek S." in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. The Respondent passed
matriculation examination in 2014. During school, the name of the Respondent was
recorded as "Mohammed Shafeek" in accordance with the birth certificate issued in
2002. After passing matriculation, another birth certificate was issued in 2017 wherein a
different name i.e., "Mohammed Shafeek S." was recorded. In accordance with the
second birth certificate, the Respondent approached the Board for change of name
which was denied by the Board citing failure to fulfil the conditions envisaged in the
Byelaws. The High Court granted the prayer by placing reliance upon the dictum in
Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340.
36. The reasoning adopted by the High Court is similar to that in civil appeals arising
from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/2020) and SLP (C) No(s).
7382/2021 (@ Diary No. 9482/2020), and we are not reiterating the same.
37. Assailing the decision, the Appellant's submissions are largely similar to those in
previous appeals. Other than grounds already urged before, the Appellant has submitted
that the Court failed to consider the presence of two birth certificates and went on to
grant the prayer without weighing the genuineness of the certificates and without
seeking an explanation from the Respondent for bringing two birth certificates on
record.
38. It is submitted that in 2004, while taking admission in class I, the Respondent's
name was recorded as "Mohammed Shafeek". The same name was carried forward while
filling the admission form again in 2008 for a different school. It is further submitted
that even at the time of filling the form for class XI, the same name was recorded and it
was duly communicated by the school to the Board. The name recorded in the
certificate, therefore, is in complete accordance with the school record. To buttress this
submission, it is urged that the record clearly shows that there is no possibility of
typographical error in the record of the Respondent and a subsequent substantial
change of name cannot be permitted in the certificates of the Board in this manner.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1826/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10927/2020)
39. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 24.8.2020 passed by the
Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 219/2020 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in
W.P. (C) No. 10841/2019 wherein the Respondent student's prayer for addition of
surname was granted in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. The Respondent
passed the examinations conducted by the Board under the name "Jyoti". The name was
consistently recorded as such in all her school records and accordingly, the CBSE
certificates carried the same name. Thereafter, she completed her MBBS and applied for
education in a foreign institution. As a part of her application, she was asked to mention
her surname. Since none of her documents carried this information, she applied to the
Board for addition of surname and change her name from "Jyoti" to "Jyoti Dalal" in the

11-01-2023 (Page 12 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

certificates. The Board refused and the Respondent approached the High Court.
4 0 . The High Court considered the applicability of Byelaws 69.1(i) and 69.1(ii) and
ruled that the said byelaws are inapplicable to the facts of the case as the Respondent's
case is not one for change of name but for incorporation of a surname which existed
throughout in the records of her parents and for which no ambiguity could be alleged. It
observed thus:
8. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case, we are of
the opinion that the same does not fall under the ambit of Clause 69(1)(i) of
the Examination Bye-Laws as:
a) This is not a case of change of name, but of incorporation of the
surname of the person concerned,
b) This is not a case where something which was altogether omitted is
to be added, as the parents' names were available in full in the records
of the Appellant-Board,
c) The Respondent (original Petitioner) in this case carries the surname
of the father and the mother which she wanted to mention after her
name. There is no dispute about her identity or confusion about the
veracity of the name which she seeks to incorporate.
Before parting, the High Court specifically noted that its decision must not be treated as
a precedent and would operate on the specific facts of the case.
41. The Appellant has assailed the decision by contending that any request for change
of name is to be examined as per Byelaw 69.1(i) and not beyond it. If such change is
not permissible under the said byelaw, then it would be wholly improper for the Court
to direct such changes. It is contended that there was no challenge to the validity of the
byelaws, and until and unless the byelaws are declared to be invalid, the Court cannot
direct any action in complete contravention thereof. As urged in previous cases, it is
added that the Respondent's case failed to fulfil the condition precedent in the said
byelaw-prior approval by a Court of law followed by publication in gazette-and the
impugned order had the effect of diluting these conditions.
42. The Appellant has submitted that the relief claimed by the Respondent is highly
delayed in time and in law, delay defeats discretion. It is urged that the Respondent was
always aware of the absence of surname in her records and she kept on sleeping on her
rights for a period of seven years and therefore, the loss of limitation must bar any
legal remedy for her. It is further submitted that such changes cannot be permitted in a
routine manner as the credibility attached with CBSE certificates would be compromised
and subsequent changes would create anomalies in the record. Reliance has been
placed upon Abhishek Kumar @ Bal Kishan v. Union of India and Ors.
MANU/DE/1503/2014 : (2014) 144 DRJ 8 (DB) to urge that subsequent issuance of
revised certificates would create discrepancy in the record and reflect status which did
not even exist at the time of making certificates.
43. The Appellant has submitted that exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the
Constitution in this manner is unwarranted as it amounts to substitution of the views of
the Court in the place of byelaws formulated on the basis of technical advice. It is urged
that the Court must be reluctant to venture into academic matters in this manner.

11-01-2023 (Page 13 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1827/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10948/2020)
44. The challenge in this appeal is against the decision dated 13.7.2020 by the High
Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 863/2020 confirming the order of the learned Single Judge
in W.P. (C) No. 21357/2019, wherein the Respondent student's prayer for change in
date of birth was granted on the basis of the birth certificate in terms of the 2007
Byelaws, as applicable. The observations of the High Court are similar to those in civil
appeals arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/2020), SLP (C)
No(s). 7382/2021 (@ Diary No. 9482/2020) and SLP (C) No(s). 7384/2021 (@ Diary
No. 16291/2020). We are not reiterating the same for the sake of brevity.
45. On perusal of the submissions, we find that the grounds urged for assailing the
decision are also similar to those taken in previous appeals and we are not repeating
the same.
46. In addition to grounds already advanced, the Respondent has filed elaborate written
submissions and additional written submissions to which we may make a brief
reference. It is submitted that as per Byelaw 7 of the Examination Byelaws, the
admission procedure upto class VIII is to be regulated by rules/Regulations/orders of
the concerned State Government. Accordingly, reference has been made to the Kerala
Education Act, 1958 and Chapter-VI of Rules framed thereunder which provides that the
primary source for determining date of birth is birth certificate. It is submitted that even
under the Right to Education Act, the primary proof of age is the birth certificate and
therefore, primacy has to be accorded to birth certificate for determination of correct
date of birth and CBSE's Byelaws must provide for bringing their certificates in accord
with such official or public documents.
47. In additional written submissions, the Respondent has answered this Court's query
as to what would be the relevant point of time for determining the application of
byelaws. It is submitted that the relevant date would be the date of considering the
application i.e., the Byelaws in force at the time of considering the application for
recording correction/change. The date of examination would be irrelevant for this
purpose. Reliance has been placed upon Somdev Kapoor v. State of West Bengal and
Ors. MANU/SC/1022/2013 : (2014) 14 SCC 486 and State of Kerala and Ors. v.
Palakkad Heritage Hotels MANU/SC/0460/2017 : (2017) 13 SCC 672 to advance the
legal proposition that Rules standing on the date of final decision by the competent
authority would be applicable.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1828/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7385/2021 (@ Diary No.
18711/2020)
48. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed by
the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2328/2019 confirming the order of learned Single
Judge in W.P. (C) No. 8465/2019 wherein the Respondent student's request for change
in date of birth was allowed. The case of the Respondent is that his date of birth was
recorded as 16.4.1994 instead of 16.4.1995 in the school records. On the basis of the
birth certificate and other supporting documents, the Respondent applied for change in
date of birth which was rejected by the Appellant Board citing the 2007 Examination
Byelaws.
49. The High Court allowed the change on grounds similar to those in the previous
appeals. We are not repeating the same.
5 0 . The submissions of the Appellant Board are also similar to those in previous

11-01-2023 (Page 14 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

appeals and there is no need to reiterate the same.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1829/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10959/2020)
5 1 . The Appellant Board has assailed the decision dated 3.7.2020 passed by D.B.
Special Appeal Writ No. 450/2020 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.
(C) No. 8808/2019 allowing the Respondent student's prayer for change of her father's
and mother's names in the certificates issued by the CBSE. Citing it as an error, a
request was made by the Respondent for change of name of father from "Vinod Mittal"
to "Vinod Kumar Jain" and mother from "Meenakshi Mittal" to "Meenakshi Agarwal".
5 2 . The High Court did not consider the permissibility of this change under the
applicable Byelaws (as amended in 2018) and instead noted that no prejudice would be
caused to the Board if the said changes are allowed. It observed thus:
It is noticed that in the writ petition, Respondent seeks only to amend the
surname of her parents and not their names. On a query by this Court from the
counsel for the Appellants that on account of change of surname, what
prejudice was going to be caused to the Appellants, he has failed to give any
response.
5 3 . The submissions advanced by the Appellant are substantially similar to those
adopted in previous appeals. Non-applicability of Byelaws, absence of any typographical
error, consonance between school record and certificates, and lapse of substantial time
despite knowing the alleged errors are primary submissions which form the basis of this
challenge. We are not elaborating upon the same to avoid repetition.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1830/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10801/2020
54. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 4.6.2020 passed by the
Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 697/2020 confirming the order of learned Single Judge in
W.P. (C) No. 11791/2019, wherein the Respondent student's request for change in date
of birth was allowed in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable. The Respondent's
case was that her date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 22.3.1990 instead of
21.6.1989. The High Court allowed the prayer on grounds similar to those in appeals
arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@ Diary No. 9445/2020), SLP (C) No(s).
7382/2021 (@ Diary No. 9482/2020), SLP (C) No(s). 7384/2021 (@ Diary No.
16291/2020) and SLP (C) No(s). 7385/2021 (@ Diary No. 18711/2020). We are not
reiterating the same.
55. Having gone through the appeal memo, we note that the submissions are similar to
those in previous appeals and we are not repeating them.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1831/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10795/2020)
56. In this appeal, the challenge is against the decision dated 6.8.2020 passed by the
High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 987/2020 confirming the order of learned Single Judge
in W.P.(C) No. 25663/2019, wherein the Respondent student's prayer for change of
name of his mother and father was allowed and accordingly, CBSE was directed to
modify the certificates.
57. Originally, the school records and CBSE certificates recorded the father's name as
"Shaji" and mother's name as "Jijimol". These names were in also in accordance with
the old birth certificate of the Respondent dated 27.10.2002. As stated by the

11-01-2023 (Page 15 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

Respondent, they noticed this mistake for the first time in 2018 after CBSE released the
Respondent's Secondary School Examination certificate on 29.5.2018. Thereafter, the
Respondent applied for issuance of fresh birth certificate wherein father's name was
changed from "Shaji" to "Shaji P." and mother's name from "Jijimol" to "Jijimol S.". It
was issued on 27.10.2018 and in furtherance thereof, the Respondent applied to the
Appellant Board for changing the certificates in light of the changed names. The Board
refused that request citing the Byelaws (as amended in 2018) and the matter reached
the High Court.
5 8 . The grounds that weighed upon the High Court while granting the prayer are
substantially similar to those in civil appeals arising from SLP (C) No(s). 7381/2021 (@
Diary No. 9445/2020), SLP (C) No(s). 7382/2021 (@ Diary No. 9482/2020), SLP (C)
No(s). 7384/2021 (@ Diary No. 16291/2020), SLP (C) No(s). 7385/2021 (@ Diary No.
18711/2020) and SLP (C) No. 10801/2020.
59. The grounds urged by the Appellant are similar to those in previous appeals and we
are not reiterating the same.
60. The Respondent has filed written submissions to submit that the present case does
not involve any delay in applying for change of name as they took prompt action upon
receiving the CBSE certificates and realizing the defect, and applied for a new birth
certificate so that changes could be made at the earliest. It is also submitted that it is
not a case of change of name or correcting a mistake in name per se. Rather, it is a
case of merely including initials of mother and father in their respective names in
accordance with a duly modified birth certificate which leaves no question as regards
the genuineness of record.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1832/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10796/2020)
61. In this appeal, the Appellant (Board) has challenged the decision dated 19.12.2019
passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2513/2019 confirming the decision of
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 14384/2019, wherein the Respondent student's
prayer for change of name from "Vaibhav R." to "Vaibhav D." in certificates issued by
the Board was allowed in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable.
62. The impugned judgment requires no discussion as it is reasoned in similar terms,
as already delineated above.
63. The grounds urged by the Appellant have already been urged in previous appeals
and we need not repeat them.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1833/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7386/2021 (@ Diary No.
19181/2020)
64. The Appellant Board herein has impugned the decision dated 8.11.2019 passed by
the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2207/2019 confirming the order of learned Single
Judge in W.P. (C) No. 10410/2019, wherein the Respondent student's prayer for change
in his date of birth was allowed on the basis of the birth certificate issued by the
appropriate authority in terms of the 2007 Byelaws, as applicable.
65. The impugned judgment requires no elaboration as it is reasoned in similar terms,
as already delineated above.
66. The grounds urged by the Appellant have already been urged in previous appeals

11-01-2023 (Page 16 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

and we need not repeat them.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1834/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11320/2020)
67. The Appellant (CBSE) has approached this Court for assailing the decision dated
12.5.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.
499/2020 declining to interfere with the decision of the District Judge, Karnal who
upheld the decision of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Judge), Assandh in Civil Suit
No. 204/2018 wherein, a declaratory relief was granted in favour of the Respondent
student declaring his date of birth as 7.5.2004 instead of 15.2.2001, father's name as
"Joginder" instead of "Joginder Singh" and mother's name as "Darshan" instead of
"Darshan Devi" (as mentioned in the CBSE certificate). The declaratory relief was
coupled with a mandatory injunction directing the Appellant Board to effect necessary
changes in the certificates of the Respondent.
68. The High Court referred to the birth certificate issued by the authorities under the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and noted that correctness of the certificate
is not under dispute and thus, the information recorded in the certificate cannot be
questioned. It observed thus:
As far as correctness of the certificate issued by the authorities under the 1969
Act, identity of the Plaintiff as also correctness in the names of his parents are
not disputed.
Noting thus, the High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by
the two Courts below.
69. In addition to the grounds already advanced by the Board in light of the applicable
Byelaws (as amended in 2018), it is submitted that the relief of declaration and
mandatory injunction could not have been granted by the Court due to non-joinder of
necessary parties in the case. It is submitted that Registrar of Births and Deaths (owing
to change in date of birth) and the concerned school (owing to changes in their records)
were necessary parties in the case and ought to have been joined. It is urged that the
non-joinder would be fatal.
70. It is further submitted that the Respondent's claim was barred by the principle of
estoppel as he was mandatorily required to submit his birth certificate in school at the
time of admission as per Byelaw 6 of the Examination Byelaws, 1995 so that the school
record could be in consonance with the birth certificate. Since the Respondent failed to
produce the same at the time of admission, it is urged, the school record carried the
information voluntarily supplied in the admission form and no change can be permitted
at this stage.
71. The Respondent has further submitted that the relief of mandatory injunction was
barred due to Sections 41(g) and 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which
specifically provide that no such relief could be provided if the Plaintiff when he/she has
acquiesced of rights. In the instant case, it is stated, the Respondent failed to apply for
change in date of birth for 15 years, despite there being a long gap of three years
between the recorded date and modified date, and such conduct must bar any such
relief.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1835/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11558/2020)
7 2 . The Appellant Board has approached this Court in appeal against the judgment

11-01-2023 (Page 17 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

dated 29.7.2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 724/2020 confirming
the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 24214/2019, wherein the Respondent
student's prayer for change in date of birth from 30.5.1992 to 23.7.1991 was granted
and original record was held to have recorded an incorrect date. For reaching this
conclusion, reliance was placed by the High Court upon a subsequently obtained birth
certificate.
73. The impugned judgment requires no discussion as it is reasoned in similar terms,
as already delineated above.
74. The Appellant has placed reliance upon the Byelaws (existing before 2007) to assail
the decision. The grounds urged by the Appellant have already been urged in previous
appeals and we need not repeat them.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1836/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7387/2021 (@ Diary No.
21923/2020)
75. The present appeal involves a challenge against the judgment dated 13.11.2019
passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 2267/2019 confirming the order of
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 8034/2019, wherein the Respondent student's
prayer for change of name from "Ganga" to "Ganga S" and father's name from
"Rajendran C" to "Rajendran Pillai C" was allowed in terms of the Byelaws (as amended
in 2018).
76. The impugned judgment requires no discussion as it is reasoned in similar terms,
as already delineated above.
77. The grounds urged by the Appellant have already been urged in previous appeals
and we need not repeat them.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1837/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 7388/2021 (@ Diary No.
25053/2020)
78. In this appeal, the Appellant (Board) has assailed the judgment dated 26.11.2019
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 4077/2019 affirming the
order of learned Single Judge with slight modification. The Respondent student had
prayed for change of his father's name from "Fazal Rehmaan" to "Shaik Fazul Rahiman"
which was permitted by the learned Single Judge. In writ appeal before the High Court,
the learned Counsel for the Board, citing the applicable Byelaws (as amended in 2018),
submitted that appropriate precautions ought to be taken while issuing such directions
for change of name as there is a possibility of misuse. The High Court observed that
such corrections must not be permitted for ulterior or extraneous reasons. In order to
prevent such possibility, the Board was permitted to obtain an affidavit in the nature of
indemnity against any such exigency. It observed thus:
2 . We find that the request made by the learned Counsel to that extent is
appreciable, inasmuch as a person should not be allowed to carry out
corrections if the same is for any ulterior motive or for any extraneous
considerations that may have itself roots either in any form of impersonation
arising out of any civil or criminal activity. In this regard, it will be open to the
Appellant Board to obtain an affidavit from the candidate in the nature of
indemnity against any such exigency as referred to above and correction be
carried out subject to such conditions as may be necessary.

11-01-2023 (Page 18 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

79. As regards cases wherein the request for change of name is bona fide and there is
no scope for prejudice, the decision of learned Single Judge directing such changes was
held to be correct. The Court observed thus:
3 . On the other hand, we find that if correction has been genuinely and bona
fide sought and no prejudice is caused, then in that event the conclusion
arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any
infirmity.
80. The grounds urged by the Appellant herein (CBSE) have since been adverted to and
require no reiteration.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1838/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 15089/2020)
81. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 25.9.2020 passed in
W.A. No. 1102/2020 affirming the order of learned Single Judge wherein the
Respondent student's prayer for change in date of birth from 17.1.1992 to 17.1.1991
was allowed upon payment of cost of Rs. 1000 to the school authority and Rs. 5000 to
the Board. Like previous cases, the prayer was granted on the basis of a subsequently
obtained birth certificate and in light of the applicable 2007 Byelaws.
82. The impugned judgment requires no discussion as it is reasoned in similar terms,
as already delineated above.
83. The grounds urged by the Appellant have also been urged in previous appeals and
we need not repeat them.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1839/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 15124/2020)
84. This appeal involves a challenge to the judgment dated 25.9.2020 passed by the
High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 1037/2020 affirming the order of learned Single
Judge, wherein the Respondent student's prayer for change in date of birth in the
certificates issued by the Board was allowed upon payment of certain costs to the
school and the Board. Reliance was again placed upon a subsequently obtained birth
certificate for ordering the said changes and on the applicable 2007 Byelaws.
85. The impugned judgment requires no discussion as it is reasoned in similar terms,
as already delineated above.
86. The grounds urged by the Appellant have also been urged in previous appeals and
we need not repeat them.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1840/2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 15625/2020)
87. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 7.9.2020 passed by the
High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 1155/2020 confirming the order of learned Single
Judge, wherein the Respondent student's prayer for change of his father's name from
"Hashim Abdulla" to "Hashim A." and mother's name from "Shahina Duneera" to
"Shahina Beegum D.S." was allowed in terms of the applicable Byelaws (as amended in
2018).
88. In the facts of the case, the Respondent obtained the certificate issued by the Board
on 29.5.2018 after passing the Secondary School Examination, 2018 wherein the names
of his parents were recorded in accordance with the school records and old birth
certificate. Contrary to the names in these documents, the names of father and mother

11-01-2023 (Page 19 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

of the Respondent were recorded as "Hashim A." and "Shahina Beegum D.S."
respectively in their school leaving certificates. In light of this conflict, the Respondent
applied to the Registering Authority for issue of a corrected birth certificate Under
Section-15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule-11 of the
Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. The High Court permitted the
changes in accordance with this subsequently obtained birth certificate.
89. The impugned judgment requires no discussion as it is reasoned in similar terms,
as already delineated above.
90. The grounds urged by the Appellant have also been urged in previous appeals and
we need not repeat them.
9 1 . Apart from grounds already advanced in previous cases, the Respondents have
advanced certain additional grounds in support of the impugned decision. It is
submitted that the CBSE has no jurisdiction or power to deny correction of records
belonging to a student after due changes by competent public authorities and
acceptance of the same by school. It is further submitted that CBSE is a society and its
Byelaws cannot be treated as equivalent to a law made by a competent legislature.
Thus, they cannot be invoked to deny the fundamental rights of the students much less
being reasonable restriction.
92. The Respondents have further questioned the vires of the Byelaws on the ground
that the government resolution providing for the power to frame Byelaws does not
permit the Board to impose such conditions for denying corrections in certificates.
Relying upon Sections 76 and 77 of the 1872 Act, it is lastly submitted that the certified
copies of public records are duly admissible and the Board ought to ensure that their
certificates are corrected in light of such updated public records.
T.P. (C) Nos. 1139-1140 OF 2020
93. The Petitioner (CBSE) herein seeks a direction from this Court to withdraw before
itself two proceedings, namely-W.P. (C) No. 5828/2016 pending before the Jharkhand
High Court and L.P.A. No. 423/2020 pending before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh, as similar questions are involved in these proceedings.
94. The former proceeding before the Jharkhand High Court is for change of name of
the student from "Saddam Hussain" to "Sajid Hussain" on the basis of changes effected
in Official Gazette, Passport, Aadhar card, Driving License and PAN card. The proceeding
before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh is against the decision of
learned Single Judge in CWP No. 21388/2018, wherein the student's prayer for change
of name in the certificates issued by the Board from "Satish Kumar s/o. Rampal" to
"Shrey s/o. Rampal" was allowed on the basis of public notices in two local
newspapers, official gazette notification notifying change of name, Aadhar card and PAN
card.
95. The Board submits that it is already contesting multiple cases before this Court in
which similar questions touching upon the power of Courts to issue directions for
changing particulars in CBSE certificates is being examined, despite there being a clear
prohibition against the same in the Examination Byelaws. The Board submits that
identical arguments are required to be advanced by it at multiple forums and it is
causing grave harm to it including in passing of conflicting directions.
96. Respondent No. 6 (Satish Kumar @Shrey) has filed "Note on submissions" wherein

11-01-2023 (Page 20 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

various grounds have been advanced to question the prohibitory Byelaws of the Board
and support the case for permitting genuine changes in certificates. It has been
submitted that the Byelaws are not statutory in nature and thus, they cannot be made as
"law" within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution and cannot be the basis to
deprive the students of their fundamental right to express their identity Under Article
19(1)(a). Reliance has been placed upon Kabir Jaiswal v. Union of India and Ors. to
support this position.
97. It is then submitted that there is a conflict between Kalpana Thakur and Anr. v.
Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. and Vyshnav @ Vishnu Viswam V. v.
Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors. as regards the relevant point of time for
determining the applicability of Byelaws, as amended from time to time. Supporting the
view taken in Vyshnav, it is urged that the relevant point of time ought to be the date of
issuance of certificate.
98. Having gone through the elaborate set of submissions and documents on record in
the respective matter, the following broad points emerge for our consideration:
(i) Whether the CBSE Examination Byelaws have the force of law?
(ii) Whether examination byelaws impose reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of rights Under Article 19 of the Constitution including fail the test of
rationality for excessively restricting the scope of permissible
corrections/changes?
(iii) Whether the Board is obliged to carry out corrections/changes in the
certificates issued by it owing to correction/updation of public
records/documents which have statutory presumption of genuineness?
(iv) Whether the examination byelaws in force on the date of examination
conducted by CBSE or the date of consideration of the application for recording
correction/change would be relevant? And, whether the effect of correction or
change, as the case may be, will have retrospective effect from the date of
issue of the original certificate?
(v) Whether writ of mandamus issued for effecting corrections in CBSE
certificates can be in the teeth of explicit provisions in the examination
byelaws, without examining validity of the byelaws?
Point No. 1
9 9 . Indubitably, the CBSE Board came to be established vide Government of India
resolution dated 1.7.1929 with a view to "enable it to play a useful role in the field of
Secondary Education" and "make the services of the Board available to various
educational institutions in the country", as stated in the Constitution of the Board.
Article 95 of the said Constitution deals with the "Powers and Functions of the Board",
which include to do all such things as may be necessary for furthering the objectives of
the Board. One of the functions or so to say power of the Board is to make Regulations
for giving effect to the afore-stated resolution as predicated in Article 166 of the
Constitution. Clause (2) thereof envisages that the Regulation so framed may provide
for conditions for issuing certificates for examination conducted by the Board. We may
also take note of Article 187 of the Constitution of the Board, which makes it amply
clear that the byelaws to be framed by the Board ought to be consistent with and

11-01-2023 (Page 21 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

subservient to the Regulations and the Resolution establishing the Board. This Article
also indicates that byelaws may be made for the purposes referred to in Clauses (a) to
(c) pertaining to procedural aspects. Indisputably, the constitution/organisation or
structure of CBSE is not backed by a statute. It is, therefore, a misnomer to characterise
byelaws framed by the Board as statutory.
100. The real question is: whether byelaws so framed have the force of law?
101. To have the force of law, it must qualify the test predicated in Article 13 of the
Constitution, else it would be mere contractual terms of engagement. For the nature of
activities undertaken by the Board including the powers and functions of the Board, it
can be safely assumed that the Board is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and as a corollary thereof, its actions would be amenable to Part-
III of the Constitution of India. The fact that the Board can be treated as a State within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution does not mean that the byelaws framed by
it would necessarily become law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of
India. Only a "law" Under Article 13 can be reckoned as a restriction in respect of rights
guaranteed Under Article 19 of the Constitution.
102. Before we proceed to analyse any further, it would be apposite to reproduce
Article 13 of the Constitution of India to answer the point under consideration. Article
13 of the Constitution reads thus:
13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.--(1) All
laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of
this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights
conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this Clause shall, to
the extent of the contravention, be void.
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule,
Regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the
territory of India the force of law;
(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or
other competent authority in the territory of India before the
commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed,
notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then
in operation either at all or in particular areas.
(4) Nothing in this Article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution
made Under Article 368.
(emphasis supplied)
103. The tenor of Article 13 clearly suggests that it was not enacted to restate the
obvious proposition that all statutory laws are "laws" in any legal system. For, it
requires no restatement that laws enacted by the legislature are "laws". The underlying
purpose of defining "law" Under Article 13 is to encompass a practical administrative
reality that there can be laws other than ordinary statutory laws. It, therefore, takes
within its sweep those matters (declaration in the form of Byelaws in this case) as

11-01-2023 (Page 22 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

having the "force of law" albeit not enacted by the legislature as such.
104. For, it defines "law" to include ordinances, orders, byelaws, rule, Regulation or
notification issued/made by the State. The precise meanings of these terms cannot be
confined in the rigidity of language and the same is neither desirable nor required in the
present case.
105. The examination revolves around the expression "having in the territory of India
the force of law", irrespective of the packaging in which the said provision is formally
couched. The text impels us to focus on the substance of the provision, and not its
form. Broadly speaking, law made by State refers to a body of Rules which shapes the
rights and liabilities of persons in a universal sense as opposed to a private transaction
between parties. Such law has the ability to bind people by providing for all prominent
aspects of their conduct as the subjects of law. Therefore, any
rule/notification/order/byelaw issued/made by the State or its instrumentalities would
have the force of law and bind all entities subjected to it and operates as a code of
conduct to regulate their functioning. Yet another crucial characteristic would be
enforceability in a court of law. Needless to observe, we are not talking about binding
codes or set of Rules decided by parties for themselves as they fall under the realm of
law of contract. We are dealing with Rules which flow from the instrumentality of the
"State" during the performance of essential public functions.
106. CBSE, despite being packaged as a registered society, is performing an essential
public function for the government since its establishment in 1929. In Binny Ltd. and
Anr. v. V. Sadasivan and Ors. MANU/SC/0470/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 657, this Court laid
down certain characteristics of public functions thus:
11....It is difficult to draw a line between public functions and private functions
when they are being discharged by a purely private authority. A body is
performing a "public function" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit
for the public or a Section of the public and is accepted by the public or that
Section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise
public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs
in the public interest. In a book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th
Edn.) by de Smith, Woolf & Jowell in Chapter 3, para 0.24, it is stated thus:
A body is performing a 'public function' when it seeks to
achieve some collective benefit for the public or a Section of
the public and is accepted by the public or that Section of the
public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise
public functions when they intervene or participate in social or
economic affairs in the public interest. This may happen in a wide
variety of ways. For instance, a body is performing a public function
when it provides 'public goods' or other collective services, such as
health care, education and personal social services, from funds raised
by taxation. A body may perform public functions in the form of
adjudicatory services (such as those of the criminal and civil courts and
tribunal system). They also do so if they regulate commercial and
professional activities to ensure compliance with proper standards. For
all these purposes, a range of legal and administrative techniques may
be deployed, including rule-making, adjudication (and other forms of
dispute resolution); inspection; and licensing.

11-01-2023 (Page 23 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 Public functions need not be the exclusive domain of the State.
Charities, self-regulatory organizations and other nominally private
institutions (such as universities, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's of
London, churches) may in reality also perform some types of public
function. As Sir John Donaldson, M.R. urged, it is important for the
courts to 'recognise the realities of executive power' and not
allow 'their vision to be clouded by the subtlety and sometimes
complexity of the way in which it can be exerted'. Non-
governmental bodies such as these are just as capable of abusing their
powers as is Government.
(emphasis supplied)
The principles associated with a public function deducible from the above analysis can
be illustratively culled out as follows:
a. Extension of collective benefit to public by a public authority;
b. Participation in social or economic affairs including health, education, social
services etc.;
c. Private bodies or charitable institutions performing public functions could
also be regulated in the same manner as a public authority.
In the school education structure as we have it, there are state government boards
limited to respective states. There are central boards having its area of operation
throughout India, namely, Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations
(ICSE), a private board; International Baccalaureate (IB), formerly known as
International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) a non-profit foundation/organization
having headquarter in Geneva, Switzerland; and CBSE.
107. CBSE is the only central body for conducting examinations in the country created
by a resolution of the Central Government. All the bodies constituted at various levels
are working in the direction of just educational governance. Article 41 of the
Constitution, couched as a directive, is the source behind the basic functioning of the
CBSE Board as it secures nothing but right to education. It is participating in
educational affairs which form an intrinsic part of social affairs. The CBSE Board is a
public authority functioning in public interest for the performance of a public function.
108. We may gainfully refer to the Constitution of the Board which reaffirms the public
character of the Board as the ultimate control over the functioning of the Board is
exercised by the Ministry of Education (now Ministry of Education & Social Welfare)8.
Article 1 states that:
1 . The Board shall conduct examinations at the secondary stage of the
education and such other examinations as it may consider fit, subject to the
approval of the Controlling Authority or as it may be called upon to conduct by
the Government of India, Ministry of Education, (now Ministry of Education &
Social Welfare) and do such acts ancillary to the objects as may be necessary.
Article 4 further reads thus:
4 . The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Education (now
Ministry of Education and Social Welfare) shall continue to be the Controlling

11-01-2023 (Page 24 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 Authority of the Board.
109. Reverting to the CBSE Examination Byelaws, the same are couched in the form of
a code. They provide for all essential aspects relating to formal education of a student
including admission, examination, migration, transfer, curriculum, fee for various
services, issuance of verified certificates, modifications in certificates etc. This Byelaws,
therefore, bind the parties and are duly enforceable in a court of law, even by way of
writ remedies as we have seen in the present batch of petitions.
110. To put it differently, the Byelaws of the Board have the force of law and must be
regarded as such for all legal purposes. It would serve no meaningful purpose to hold
these authoritative set of Rules originating from an instrumentality of the State as mere
contractual terms despite there being overwhelming public interest in their just
application.
111. The argument that Byelaws of the Board are contractual elements as CBSE is a
registered society unbacked by a statute cannot be accepted for at least four reasons-
first, CBSE is not a private corporate body. It is a juristic person and a "State" within
the meaning of Article 12, which in itself warrants its amenability to the courts including
constitutional writ courts; second, the functions performed by the CBSE Board are
public functions and not private functions; third, the test of "force of law" takes within
its sweep the nature of rule, its authoritative impact on the subjects, nature of function
performed by the Rule making body, the origin of the body, the binding value of the
rules, existence of any competing set of Rules and fourth, absence of statute does not
automatically render the Rules to be contractual terms, as already observed.
112. As in the ultimate analysis, the Byelaws operate as law, the scrutiny of this Court
cannot be undermined by giving them an artificial colour. For a student enrolled with
the CBSE, there is no other body of Rules but the subject Byelaws for dealing with all
significant aspects of her education. By now it is an established tenet that even body
corporates, co-operative societies, registered societies etc. can be declared as
instrumentalities of the State, for the only reason that the outer form of organization
must not be allowed to defeat the ultimate constitutional goal of protection of
fundamental rights as and when they suffer at the hands of the State, directly or
indirectly. The Court ought to intervene with circumspection even when the public body
derives its authority from a government resolution.
113. We say so because there is an evolving body of jurisprudence enunciating that the
principle of presumption of constitutionality attached with statutes ought not to be
extended to subordinate legislations with the same vigour. For, the legislature enjoys
the sacred backing of people's will and naturally, every act of legislature is presumed to
be constitutional. In other words, the Courts generally do not look upon duly enacted
laws with suspicion at the first glance as they enjoy legal presumption of its validity.
Nevertheless, circumspect intervention on the part of the Court is to advance
constitutional protection for guarantees under Part-III of the Constitution.
114. Arguendo, the Examination Byelaws are not "law" Under Article 13, it would not
affect the power of the Court to scrutinize them in reference to Part-III of the
Constitution of India as CBSE is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 and all its
actions are consequently subject to Part-III.
Point No. 2
115. The question whether Byelaws under consideration impose reasonable restrictions

11-01-2023 (Page 25 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

on the exercise of rights Under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, may have to be
understood in the context of enunciation of this Court that the core existence of an
individual is not exemplified by her outer characteristics but by her inner self-
identification and also about the significance of the acquired identity in the form of
name. The identity of an individual is one of the most closely guarded areas of the
constitutional scheme in India. The sanctity of identity has been recognized by this
Court in a plethora of cases including National Legal Services Authority v. Union of
India and Ors. MANU/SC/0309/2014 : (2014) 5 SCC 438, Navtej Singh Johar and Ors.
v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice MANU/SC/0947/2018 :
(2018) 10 SCC 1 and K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017) 10 SCC 1. In fact, in Navtej Singh Johar
MANU/SC/0947/2018 : (2018) 10 SCC 1, the Court noted how the core existence of an
individual is not exemplified by her outer characteristics but by her inner self-
identification. In the context of natural identity of an individual, this Court in Navtej
Singh Johar MANU/SC/0947/2018 : (2018) 10 SCC 1 had noted that:
5 . The natural identity of an individual should be treated to be absolutely
essential to his being. What nature gives is natural. That is called nature within.
Thus, that part of the personality of a person has to be respected and not
despised or looked down upon. The said inherent nature and the associated
natural impulses in that regard are to be accepted. Non-acceptance of it by any
societal norm or notion and punishment by law on some obsolete idea and
idealism affects the kernel of the identity of an individual. Destruction of
individual identity would tantamount to crushing of intrinsic dignity
that cumulatively encapsulates the values of privacy, choice, freedom
of speech and other expressions. It can be viewed from another angle. An
individual in exercise of his choice may feel that he/she should be left alone but
no one, and we mean, no one, should impose solitude on him/her.
(emphasis supplied)
1 1 6 . Identity, therefore, is an amalgam of various internal and external including
acquired characteristics of an individual and name can be regarded as one of the
foremost indicators of identity. And therefore, an individual must be in complete control
of her name and law must enable her to retain as well as to exercise such control freely
"for all times". Such control would inevitably include the aspiration of an individual to
be recognized by a different name for a just cause. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
provides for a guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. In light of Navtej
Singh Johar MANU/SC/0947/2018 : (2018) 10 SCC 1, this freedom would include the
freedom to lawfully express one's identity in the manner of their liking. In other words,
expression of identity is a protected element of freedom of expression under the
Constitution.
117. Having recognized the existence of this right, the essential question pertains to
the rights that flow due to the change of name. The question becomes vital because
identity, as stated above, is a combination of diverse set of elements. Navtej Singh
Johar MANU/SC/0947/2018 : (2018) 10 SCC 1 dealt with "natural identity" and here we
are dealing with name, which can only be perceived as an 'acquired identity'. Therefore,
the precise scope of right and extent of restrictions could only be determined upon
deeper examination.
118. To begin with, it is important to explain what we understand by this right to
change of name as a constituent element of freedom of expression of identity. Any
change in identity of an individual has to go through multiple steps and it cannot be

11-01-2023 (Page 26 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

regarded as complete without proper fulfilment of those steps. An individual may self-
identify oneself with any title or epithet at any point of time. But the change of identity
would not be regarded as formally or legally complete until and unless the State and its
agencies take note thereof in their records. After all , in social sphere, an individual is
not only recognized by how an individual identifies oneself but also by how his/her
official records identify him/her. For, in every public transaction of an individual, official
records introduce the person by his/her name and other relevant particulars.
119. Thus, the essential question is whether the aforesaid right to alter name would
mean that the State and its agencies are unconditionally bound to reckon the changed
identity of the individual and give recognition to the same by altering its records,
whenever such request is made by him/her.
120. Going by the very nature of rights Under Article 19, the right to get changed name
recorded in the official (public) records cannot be an absolute right and as a matter of
public policy and larger public interest calls for certain reasonable restrictions to
observe consistency and obviate confusion and deceptive attempt.
121. We may now examine whether CBSE Byelaws are just and reasonable restrictions
in the context of rights guaranteed under Part-III and in the interests of the general
public.
122. The test of reasonableness requires that the impugned law is intelligently crafted
in such a manner that it is able to justify the ultimate impact of the law on its subjects.
If it restricts, it must restrict on the basis of reason and if it permits, it must permit on
the basis of reason. Similarly, if a law draws a classification, it must classify
intelligently i.e., backed by reason. Reason is the foundation of all laws and their
validity is immensely dependent on the availability of sound reason. Equally crucial is
the availability of a legitimate object. It is important to note that reasonableness is
adjudged in the specific context of the case and is not confined to the words of a
definition. In Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0202/2004 :
(2004) 3 SCC 402, this Court noted thus:
32. The concept of "reasonableness" defies definition. Abstract definition like
"choice of a course which reason dictates" as propounded in the earliest case of
this Court in Chintamanrao9 is elastic. In the subsequent case of V.G. Row10
therefore, this Court has observed that "no abstract standard or general pattern"
of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. Legal author
Friedmann in his book Legal Theory, 4th Edn., at pp. 83-85, comments that
reasonableness is an expression used to convey basically the natural law ideal
of "justice between man and man". The concept of "reasonable man" is also an
application of the principles of natural justice to the standard of behaviour
expected of the citizen. The functional and conceptual implication of the term
"reasonableness" is that it is essentially another word used for public policy. It
means the application of the underlying principles of social policy and morality
to an individual case. Friedmann further observes that the "test of
reasonableness is nothing substantially different from 'social engineering',
'balancing of interests', or any of the other formulas which modern sociological
theories suggest as an answer to the problem of the judicial function".
In V.G. Row10, the Court, noting that there can be no general pattern of
reasonableness, laid down certain factors to be kept in mind while determining this
question thus:

11-01-2023 (Page 27 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 (15) ...It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of
reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual
statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general pattern of
reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the
right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the
restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be
remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing
conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. ...
(emphasis supplied)
123. As noted above, the Byelaws permit change of name only if permission from the
Court has been obtained prior to the publication of result. It puts a clear embargo on
any change of name sans prior permission before the publication. The provision is
problematic on certain counts. Firstly, it is not a mere restriction on the right, it is a
complete embargo on the right post publication of result of the candidate. It fails to
take into account the possibility of need for change of name after the publication of
result including the uncertainty of timeline required to obtain such declaration from the
Court of law due to law's delay and upon which the candidate has no control
whatsoever. Whereas, while amending the Byelaws in 2007, the CBSE itself had noted
that children are not of mature age while passing school examinations and they may not
be in a position to decide conclusively on issues concerning their identity. The Byelaws
completely overlook this possibility when it ordains seeking declaration from the Court
prior to the publication of results of the concerned examination conducted by it.
124. The overriding state interest, as per the Board, to retain this stringency is nothing
but efficiency of administration. Administrative efficiency, despite being a crucial
concern, has not been and cannot be elevated to a standard that it is used to justify
non-performance of essential functions by an instrumentality of the State. To use
administrative efficiency to make it practically impossible for a student to alter her
identity in the Board certificates, no matter how urgent and important it is, would be
highly disproportionate and can in no manner be termed as a reasonable restriction.
Reasonableness would demand a proper balance between a student's right to be
identified in the official (public) records in manner of her choice and the Board's
argument of administrative efficiency. To sustain this balance, it would be open to the
Board to limit the number of times such alterations could be permitted including subject
to availability of the old records preserved by it as per the extant Regulations. But to
say that post the publication of examination results and issuance of certificates, there
can be no way to alter the record would be a case of total prohibition and not a
reasonable restraint.
125. The limitation as regards maximum period upto which changes can be permitted
also requires a different approach. Upon receiving the certificates, the student would
naturally be put to notice of the particulars of certificates. Due to young age and
inadvertence including being casual and indolent, a student may fail to identify the
errors or to understand the probable impact of those errors and accordingly, may not
apply for rectification immediately. It is also possible that a student may not have to
use the certificates immediately after passing out and by the time she uses them, the
limitation period for correction may elapse. Therefore, a realistic time for permitting
corrections is very important. Indeed, it can be commensurate with the statutory or
mandatory period upto which CBSE is obliged to preserve its old record.
126. However, we need not explore upon the question as to whether the exercise of a
fundamental right can be foreclosed by prescribing a rigid period of limitation. In case

11-01-2023 (Page 28 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

of any ordinary civil rights, it is important that the action for enforcement of such rights
is initiated in prescribed time and consistency is maintained, but is it permissible to say
the same about fundamental rights? The rights which are recognised as fundamental
under the Constitution are "preferred or chosen freedoms" and a very sensitive and
realistic approach has to be taken in such matters. We wonder whether after the lapse
of prescribed time, let us say 3 years, there could be no reasonable and legitimate
circumstances to warrant change of name.
127. At the same time, there is merit in CBSE's argument that frequent changes cannot
be permitted as there is scope of abuse and misuse, apart from administrative burden.
This argument cannot be lightly brushed aside. We deem it fit to observe that same
concerns could apply to other bodies as well, like Unique Identification Authority of
India11 and Passport Authority.
128. As regards the argument of misuse, no doubt, there are instances of misuse of
provisions that permit change of identity in criminal matters. However, mere possibility
of abuse cannot deter the Board from fulfilling their essential functions. A possibility of
abuse cannot be used to deny legitimate rights to citizens. The balance simply does not
tilt in favour of such a proposition. The course of law cannot choose to change its
stream merely because there are apprehensions of abuse on the way. The Board's
concern is only to regulate and maintain efficient educational standards. It is not a
penal authority. If any of the provisions of Byelaws are subjected to misuse or abuse by
anyone, the Board would be well within its rights to approach the appropriate body for
necessary penal or civil action. As a nodal agency made for a specific public purpose,
CBSE can only use its means and resources to put proper safeguards in place while
performing its functions. More so, when it is not even the job of the Board to verify
anything, as changes are made after grant of permission by a Court of law. There is
involvement of judicial application of mind. The Board only has to give effect to the
Court order granting permission, as and when it is so pronounced irrespective of
publication of examination results in earlier point of time.
129. Administrative efficiency, we must note, cannot be the sole concern of CBSE.
Every institution desires efficiency in their functioning. But it does not mean that
efficiency is achieved by curbing their basic functions. Article 9 of CBSE's Constitution,
in point (xvi), instructively states that CBSE is a body constituted for "regulating and
maintaining" the standard of secondary education. The same is reproduced again for
ready reference:
9. The Board shall have the following powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(xvi) To do all such or other things as may be necessary in order to further the
objectives of the Board as a body constituted for regulating and
maintaining the standard of secondary education.
(emphasis supplied)
The terms "Regulation" and "maintenance" are terms of very wide import and signify
that the functioning of the Board is not narrowed down in any manner whatsoever.
Regulation of standard of education would empower the Board to take all necessary
steps, as permissible under the Resolution and Regulations, to control all possible
aspects of school education that may have a bearing on its standard. Quality of
curriculum, services extended to the students, effective grievance redressal mechanism,

11-01-2023 (Page 29 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

oversight over affiliated schools etc. are some of the essential elements touching upon
the standard of education. Maintenance of those standards would demand constant
upgradation of Rules and services of the Board in tune with changing needs of the
students and the ultimate goal of education.
130. One of the primary functions of the Board is to grant certificates to its students.
Effective maintenance and Regulation of standard of education would include complete
accountability of the Board in grant of such certificates and its duty does not get
extinguished after publication of examination results and issue of certificates. Rather, it
extends to taking care of post-publication concerns of students as and when they
emerge, as students seek to use their certificates for purposes of higher education and
career opportunities. A narrow reading of the functions of the Board would leave glaring
gaps in the field of school education and may jeopardize the welfare of students with
legitimate concerns.
131. The concerned Byelaw has been framed on the assumption that there can be no
situation wherein a legitimate need for change of name could arise for a student after
publication of results. It is presumed that only typographical/factual errors could come
in the certificates and they can be corrected using the provision for corrections. The
presumption, we must note, is erroneous, absurd and distances itself from the social
realities. There can be numerous circumstances wherein change of name could be a
legitimate requirement and keeping the ultimate goal of preserving the standard of
education in mind, the Board must provide for a reasonable opportunity to effect such
changes.
132. It would not be out of place to note that the two parties here-the Board and
students-are not in an equal position of impact. In other words, the balance of
convenience would tilt in favour of students. For, they stand to lose more due to
inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board whose sole worry is increasing
administrative burden. The obligation of Board to take additional administrative burden
is no doubt onerous but the propensity of a student losing career opportunities due to
inaccurate certificate is unparalleled. Illustratively, a juvenile Accused of being in
conflict with the law or a victim of sexual abuse whose identity gets compromised due
to lapses by media or the investigative body, despite there being complete legal
protection for the same, may consider changing the name to seek rehabilitation in the
society in exercise of her right to be forgotten. If the Board, in such a case, refuses to
change the name, the student would be compelled to live with the scars of the past. We
are compelled to wonder how it would not be a grave and sustained violation of
fundamental rights of the student. In such circumstances, the avowed public interest in
securing rehabilitation of affected persons would overwhelm the Board's interest in
securing administrative efficiency. In fact, it would be against the human dignity of the
student, the protection whereof is the highest duty of all concerned. A Board dealing
with maintenance of educational standards cannot arrogate to itself the power to impact
identity of students who enrol with it. The right to control one's identity must remain
with the individual, subject, of course, to reasonable restrictions as observed above and
as further discussed later.
1 3 3 . The utility of certificates issued by the Board is not confined to educational
purposes anymore. They serve a social purpose today and are often used to cross verify
particulars like name and date of birth while applying for other government identity
documents. They assume immense relevance while applying for various jobs, both
public and private. Interestingly, CBSE itself has argued at length on the importance
and authoritative value of their certificates. In such circumstances, an inaccuracy or

11-01-2023 (Page 30 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

denial of change could be fatal to a student's future prospects and all these concerns
cannot be brushed aside in the name of administrative exigencies.
134. Pertinently, the Parliament is also alive to the social realities having bearing on
identity documents. There are various statutory enactments wherein detailed provisions
are made for change of identity. The UIDAI allows changes in the Aadhar card upon
fulfilment of required conditions. Section-31 of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial
and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 provides for changes in the
records. The provision permits both demographic and biometric changes. It reads thus:
3 1 . Alteration of demographic information or biometric information.--(1) In
case any demographic information of an Aadhaar number holder is found
incorrect or changes subsequently, the Aadhaar number holder shall request the
Authority to alter such demographic information in his record in the Central
Identities Data Repository in such manner as may be specified by Regulations.
(2) In case any biometric information of Aadhaar number holder is lost or
changes subsequently for any reason, the Aadhaar number holder shall request
the Authority to make necessary alteration in his record in the Central Identities
Data Repository in such manner as may be specified by Regulations.
(3) On receipt of any request Under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), the
Authority may, if it is satisfied, make such alteration as may be required in the
record relating to such Aadhaar number holder and intimate such alteration to
the concerned Aadhaar number holder.
(4) No identity information in the Central Identities Data Repository shall be
altered except in the manner provided in this Act or Regulations made in this
behalf.
Schedule II attached with Aadhar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016 provides
for the list of documents acceptable for the purpose of verification of identity when a
request for changes is made. Proof of Identity could be verified on the basis of
following documents12:
a. Passport;
b. PAN Card;
c. Driving License;
d. Voter ID
For proof of date of birth, following documents12 are acceptable:
a. Birth certificate;
b. Passport;
c. Certificate of date of birth issued by Group A Gazetted Officer on letterhead.
The UIDAI website also notes why such changes could be required and we feel it
relevant to reproduce the same thus:
Demographic data update, the need could arise from:

11-01-2023 (Page 31 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 • Changes in life events such as marriage may lead to residents
changing their basic demographic details such as name and
address. Address and mobile number could also change due to
migration to newer locations. Residents may also want changes
in their relative's details due to changes in life events such
marriage, death of a relative etc. In addition, residents could
have other personal reasons to change their mobile number,
email address etc.
• Changes in various service delivery platforms may lead residents to
declaration request changes and to add mobile number to CIDR etc.
• Errors made during the enrolment process wherein the resident's
demographic data may have been captured incorrectly. Changes to
"DoB/Age" and "Gender" fields are expected primarily due to enrolment
errors.
• Since a resident can enrol anywhere in India, it may happen that a
native speaker of language "A" is enrolled by an operator of language
"B" and consequently the resident's local language of enrolment is "B".
Later, the resident may want to change the local language of enrolment
to another that he/she prefers. If so, then all the demographic
information that is printed on the Aadhaar letter will need to be
updated in the new local language.
• UIDAI may also ascertain availability of POI, POA and other
documents collected at the time of enrolment/update and its quality
and decide to notify resident to update their demographic information
and submit the required document.
(emphasis supplied)
Apart from changes required due to marriage, migration, death etc., the authority takes
into account the need for permitting changes due to "personal reasons". The underlying
idea is to ensure accuracy of record whilst ensuring free exercise of control by an
individual over her identity.
135. Similarly, Section 24 of the Passports Act, 1967 read with the Passport Rules,
1980 permit change of name and date of birth on the basis of certain documents. The
Ministry of External Affairs13 permits change of name and other information, including
signature, of the passport holder as a part of its passport services. It allows change of
name under three categories:
Change of name may be allowed to the applicant in the following events:
1. Following marriage, divorce or Remarriage or
2. Adding surname (childhood to adulthood) or
3. Change of complete name.
It permits such changes on the basis of certain documents which are listed as:
Documents required

11-01-2023 (Page 32 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 (i) Prescribed Deed Poll
(ii) Original newspaper cutting announcing the change of name published in
two leading daily newspapers (in the areas of residence & permanent
residence)-in Indian & local Newspaper
(iii) The applicant has to furnish a Sworn Affidavit(s) for the purpose quoting
the reason for name change.
The Ministry also permits change in signature on the Passport upon fulfilment of certain
conditions which read thus:
Change of Signature
For changing signature in the passport, application for new passport has to be
made and the applicant must append his/her old signature along with new
signature on the second page of the passport application form along with the
following documents.
Requirements:
1. Application form should be completely filled in and signed.
2 . 4 (four) passport size (35 mm x 45 mm) identical photographs
showing frontal view of full face with white background.
3 . The current passport having valid visa or residence permit is
required to be enclosed. In case the latest passport is additional
booklet(s) issued to the original passport, the additional booklet(s)
plus the original passport must be furnished.
Furthermore, the Ministry also permits change of appearance in its records if it has
changed significantly over time, thus:
Change in appearance
If your appearance has changed significantly since your last passport was
made, you can apply for a fresh passport with a recent photograph.
136. What emerges from the above analysis is that the government(s) is cognizant of
its duty to upgrade its identity records in tune with changing requirements of the
citizens. From reasons purely personal to reasons flowing from life events such as
marriage, death or migration, the authorities are responsive to the changing needs of
citizens. As per the nature of identity, changes are permissible. In light of the clear
dicta in National Legal Services Authority MANU/SC/0309/2014 : (2014) 5 SCC 438 and
K.S. Puttaswamy MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017) 10 SCC 1, it is bounden duty of all
state instrumentalities to play the role of enablers in the exercise of rights by the
citizens, including to correct their records owing to purely personal choices of the
citizens. For instance, "gender" is an evolving concept which could warrant changes in
identity documents. In such cases, too much insistence on disclosure of reasons could
be invasive to privacy. Though, in an ultimate analysis, this exercise of examining the
reasons has to be left to the court of law empowered to permit changes in a specific
factual scenario.
137. No doubt, it is true that CBSE certificates are not strictly meant to be considered

11-01-2023 (Page 33 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

as identity documents, however, the same are being relied upon for corroborative
purposes in all academic and career related transactions as foundational document. In
fact, the CBSE itself has conceded to this fact that their certificates are relied for all
official purposes, as noted above. The date of birth in matriculation certificate, in
particular, is relied upon as primary evidence of date of birth of a citizen. Therefore, as
regards the information contained in a CBSE certificate, the Board must afford
opportunity to the students to modify it subject to complying with requisite formalities
which are reasonable in nature. If all other State agencies could allow it for the
perseverance of consistency and accuracy, alongside being enablers in free exercise of
rights by the citizens, there is no reason for the CBSE to not uphold that right of the
students. More so, it would be in the interest of CBSE's own credibility that their records
are regarded as accurate and latest records of a student worthy of being relied upon for
official purposes. Therefore, this approach would serve twin purposes-enabling free
exercise of rights and perseverance of accuracy.
138. We must, however, note that the justiciability of the requested changes can of
course be gone into. Every agency has its own method of verification while accepting or
rejecting changes in their records. For instance, some agencies use sworn affidavits for
carrying out changes, some agencies require prior permission by a court of law. The
CBSE itself uses the same mechanism-prior permission by court of law and publication
in official gazette. We may discuss the relevance of prior permission by court in
deciding the questions of justiciability and genuineness of requested changes at a later
stage.
139. Law gives no recognition to an act of shunning essential duties by an entity of the
State. There is a settled body of cases which expounds that a body entrusted with
essential public functions cannot unduly put fetters on its powers. In Indian Aluminium
Company MANU/SC/0310/1975 : 1975 (2) SCC 414, this Court noted the proposition
thus:
12. This case was followed by Russell. J. in York Corporation v. Henry Leetham
& Sons Ltd. (1924) 1 Ch 557. There, the Plaintiff-corporation was entrusted by
statute with the control of navigation in part of the rivers Ouse and Fose with
power to charge such tolls within limits, as the corporation deemed necessary
to carry on the two navigations in which the public had an interest. The
corporation made two contracts with the Defendants under which they agreed
to accept, in consideration of the right to navigate the Ouse, a regular annual
payment of £600 per annum in place of the authorised tolls. The contract in
regard to navigation of the Fose was on similar lines. It was held by Russell, J.
that the contracts were ultra vires and void because under them the corporation
had disabled itself, whatever emergency might arise, from exercising its
statutory powers to increase tolls as from time to time might be necessary. The
learned Judge, after citing Ayr Harbour's case (1883) 8 App 623 and another
case Straffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation v. Birmingham Canal
Navigation 1866 LR 1 HL 254 observed:
The same principle underlies many other cases which show the
incapacity of a body charged with statutory powers for public purposes
to divest itself of such powers or to fetter itself in the use of such
powers.
13. Finally Lord Parker, C.J. said in Southend-on-Sea Corporation v. Hodgson
(Wickford) Ltd. 1961 2 All ER 46:

11-01-2023 (Page 34 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 There is a long line of cases to which we have not been
specifically referred which lay down that a public authority
cannot by contract fetter the exercise of its discretion.
(emphasis supplied)
Similar proposition is enunciated in J.K. Aggarwal MANU/SC/0294/1991 : 1991 (2) SCC
283 In the context of CBSE, the Delhi High Court in Dhruva Parate MANU/DE/4597/2009
: ILR 2009 V Delhi 371 noted how CBSE has created self-imposed restrictions in its
Byelaws by permitting no change of name. The Court deprecated this exercise of
discretion and noted thus:
8 . The interests of efficiency of an organization ordinarily determine the
guidelines that have to be administered; yet when they constrain the authorities
of the organization, which is meant to sub-serve the general public, from doing
justice, in individual cases, the guidelines become self-defeating. In such cases,
as in the present one, the end result would mean that the Petitioner would be
left with two certificates with different names and a whole lifetime spent
possibly on explaining the difference-hardly conducive to him, reflecting the
inadequacy in the system.
In light of the above discussion, we must note that there are no restrictions on the
power of CBSE to permit change of name. The Constitution, Resolution and Regulations
are functional documents of the Board and none of these documents provide for any
such fetters. Therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, the Board cannot put fetters on
its duties so as to cause grave prejudice to the students with legitimate causes for
changing their certificates. The exercise of discretion in this negative manner would be
arbitrary and unreasonable, at best.
140. We, thus, hold that the provision regarding change of name "post publication of
examination results" is excessively restrictive and imposes unreasonable restrictions on
the exercise of rights Under Article 19. We make it clear that the provision for change of
name is clearly severable from those for corrections in name/date of birth and
therefore, our determination shall not affect them except as regards the condition of
limitation period, in terms of the aforesaid discussion and guidelines stated later.
141. Let us now understand the journey of examination byelaws from 1995 to 2018, as
they sailed through multiple amendments over the course of time.
142. We may begin with Byelaws which were in force upto 2007 i.e., upto the 2007
amendment. Byelaw 69 dealt with "Changes in Board's Certificate" wherein Byelaw 69.1
covered "Changes and Corrections in Name" and 69.2 covered "Change/Correction in
Date of Birth". On an understanding of the language adopted in the Byelaws, we must
note at the very outset that the terms "correction" and "change" are not used
interchangeably in the Byelaws. Whereas, the term "correction" denotes spelling errors,
factual errors or typographical errors and the term "change" denotes a complete change
of name. For ready reference, a summary of the development of Examination Byelaws
can be tabulated as follows:

11-01-2023 (Page 35 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

143. The aforesaid table depicts that there is hardly any consistency in the Examination
Byelaws operating during the relevant period, either in the scope of permissible changes
or in the timelines provided for effecting such changes. Presumably, drawing upon
experiences and judicial pronouncements, the Board had to carry out frequent
amendments in the Byelaws, sometimes to do a somersault and go back to the earlier
position. By and large, the impression gathered from the above tabular analysis is that
the Board has been groping in the dark without having an all-purpose long term
objective policy in place as regards permissible changes.
EXAMINATION OF VALIDITY OF BYELAWS
1 4 4 . At the outset, we note that there are certain characteristics of changes that
students usually apply for being recorded in their certificates. Change of name of the
student/father/mother, correction in name of the student/father/mother and correction
in date of birth are the primary ones. All these changes cannot be weighed with the
same scale. Even in the Byelaws, all these changes are not subjected to the same set of
restrictions/conditions and different changes are circumscribed by different conditions.
145. The conditions regarding "correction" in name or date of birth are not as stringent
as conditions applicable to change thereof. For correction in name, the 2018 Byelaws
provide for a limitation period of five years and permit such corrections that can be
characterized as typographical, factual or spelling mistake in comparison with school
records. Understandably, a correction would mean retention of the original record with
slight modification to make it consistent with the school records. This requirement of
modification could be born out of various reasons, namely typographical mistake at the

11-01-2023 (Page 36 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

time of publishing, spelling error or factual error i.e., an error of fact as it existed at the
time when the certificate was published. Thus, correction in name is done to bring
unanimity between the school records (as they existed at the time of sending
information to the Board) and CBSE certificates. However, if school records are altered
afterwards and Board is called upon to alter its certificates in light of the updated school
records, the same cannot be termed as correction per se but would be in the nature of
recording change. Therefore, substantially deviating from a "correction", the Byelaws
provide for an option to "change" the name, which is subject to different conditions.
146. Similar provision is available for "correction" in date of birth, either on the basis
of school records or on the basis of order of court. The word "change" is not used for
date of birth as, unlike name, there can only be one date of birth and there can only be
a correction to make it consistent with school record or order of Court. It cannot be
changed to replace the former with a fresh date of one's choice. Be it noted, provisions
relating to correction in date of birth and name are just and reasonable and do not
impose any unreasonable restriction on permissibility of corrections. The restriction
regarding limitation period shall be examined later, along with other provisions.
147. The provision for "change" of name is far more stringent and calls for a thorough
review to settle the correct position. As per the present law, change of name is
permissible upon fulfilment of two prior conditions-prior permission of the Court of law
and publication of the proposed change in official gazette. These conditions co-exist
with another condition predicating that both prior permission and publication must be
done before the publication of result. What it effectively means is that change of name
would simply be impermissible after the publication of result of the candidate even if
the same is permitted by a Court of law and published in official gazette. In other
words, once the examination result of the candidate has been published, the Board
would only permit corrections in name mentioned in the certificate. Further, changing
the name out of freewill is simply ruled out.
148. Notably, the cases before us pertain to different periods. As aforesaid, the CBSE
byelaws which existed prior to 2007 were different. The summary of the journey of the
examination byelaws from 2007 till 2018 has been tabulated hitherto. The distinction
between "correction" and "change" was always well-demarcated including prior to 2007.
As regards the correction which could mean to carry out modification to make it
consistent with school record but when it came to request for change of name of the
candidate or his parents, that could be done only after complying with the pre-
conditions specified therefor. However, when it came to change in the date of birth that
was completely prohibited. Only correction regarding date of birth was permitted to be
made consistent with the school record. And for which limitation of two years from
declaration of result was specified. The requirement of two years cannot be considered
as unreasonable restriction. The candidate and his parents are expected to be vigilant
and to take remedial measures immediately after declaration of result of the candidate.
That too for being made consistent with school record. The Board must follow the
discipline of continuation of entries in the school record as it is vital for pursuing
further and higher education including career opportunities by the candidate.
Significantly, the position as obtained prior to 2007 did not provide for any time limit
within which correction of candidate's name or of his parents was to be pursued. These
restrictions are certainly reasonable restrictions while recognising the enabling power of
the Board to alter its record in the form of certificates issued to the candidate concerned
to make it consistent with the school records or otherwise.
149. Suffice it to observe that frequent amendments in the Byelaws have been made

11-01-2023 (Page 37 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

providing for different dispensations for the relevant period. For the nature of final
directions that we propose to issue, it may not be necessary to dilate on the validity of
the concerned Byelaw as amended from time to time. Broadly, it can be noted that the
Byelaw recognises two different dispensations. First is to carry out modifications in the
original certificate on request for making it consistent with the school records of the
incumbent. The second is to incorporate particulars in the original certificate which are
different from the school records.
150. Indisputably, the candidate would pursue further education and explore future
career opportunities on the basis of school records including the CBSE Board. The CBSE
maintains its official records in respect of candidate on the basis of foundational
documents being the school records. Therefore, the CBSE is obliged to carry out all
necessary corrections to ensure that CBSE certificate is consistent with the relevant
information furnished in the school records as it existed at the relevant time and future
changes thereto including after the publication of results by the CBSE. However, when it
comes to recording any information in the original certificate issued by the CBSE which
is not consistent with the school records, it is essential that the CBSE must insist for
supporting public document which has presumptive value and in the given case
declaration by a Court of law to incorporate such a change. In that regard, the CBSE can
insist for additional conditions to reassure itself and safeguard its interest against any
claim by a third party/body because of changes incorporated by it pursuant to
application made by the candidate. In the concluding paragraph, we intend to issue
directions to the CBSE Board in light of the discussion in this judgment. For the nature
of uniform directions that we propose to issue so as to obviate any inconsistent
approach in the cases under consideration including future cases to be dealt with by the
CBSE Board, it is not necessary for us to dilate on the question of validity of the
respective amendments in the relevant Byelaws effected from time to time.
Point No. 3
BINDING VALUE OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
151. Whether CBSE is obliged to effect changes in the certificates issued by it upon
production of updated public documents (other than school records), is the next issue
for consideration. According to the Board, it would not be permissible as it has no
independent mechanism to verify the genuineness of the public documents. Even under
the Byelaws, there is no requirement for the Board to verify the genuineness of the
documents. It is simply not the job of the Board.
152. The Byelaws provide for a two-tier mechanism for recording change of name or
other details (as indicated above). One of them is prior permission or declaration by a
Court of law to be obtained. As regards public documents like Birth Certificate, Official
Gazette, Aadhaar Card, Election Card, etc., the same enjoy legal presumption of its
correctness in terms of explicit provisions contained in Chapter V of the 1872 Act. The
1872 Act extends such presumption in terms of Section 76 read with Sections 79 and 80
of the 1872 Act and as in the case of Official Gazette Under Section 81 of the same Act.
Even other legislations concerning public documents attach equal importance to the
authenticity of such documents including while making changes in their certificates to
which we have alluded to in this judgment. Understood thus, there is no reason for the
CBSE Board to not take notice of the public documents relied upon by the candidate and
to record change on that basis in the certificate issued by it, for being consistent with
the relied upon public documents. It matters not if the information furnished in the
public documents is not entirely consistent with the school records of the incumbent.

11-01-2023 (Page 38 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

The CBSE while accepting those documents as foundational documents for effecting
changes consistent therewith may insist for additional conditions and at the same time
while retaining the original entry make note in the form of caption/annotation in the
fresh certificate to be issued by it while calling upon the incumbent to surrender the
original certificate issued by it to avoid any misuse thereof at a later point of time. It
would be permissible for the CBSE to insist for a sworn affidavit to be given by the
incumbent making necessary declaration and also to indemnify the CBSE. The fresh
certificate to be issued by the CBSE may also contain disclaimer of the Board clearly
mentioning that change has been effected at the behest of the incumbent in light of the
public documents relied upon by him. In addition, the incumbent can be called upon to
notify about the change in the Official Gazette and by giving public notice as
precondition for recording the change by way of abundant precaution.
153. This Court in CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar MANU/SC/1014/2009 :
(2009) 7 SCC 283, has observed that the records maintained by statutory authorities
have a presumption of correctness in their favour and they would prevail over any entry
made in the school register. The Court observed thus:
18. The deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises
a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are
admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It would
prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly, in absence of any
proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of the
Respondent. (See Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit MANU/SC/0052/1988 :
AIR 1988 SC 1796.)
The same position of law can be extended to the mandate laid down in Right to
Education Act and Chapter-3 of the CBSE Byelaws relating to admission of students.
Byelaw 6.1 is instructive and relevant extract thereof reads thus:
6. Admission: General Conditions:
6.1(a) A student seeking admission to any class in a 'School' will be
eligible for admission to that Class only if he:
....
....
(iv) produces:
...
(c) For the purposes of admission to elementary education, the age of a
child shall be determined on the basis of the birth certificate issued in
accordance with the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages
Registration Act, 1886 or on the basis of such other document, as may
be prescribed, as stipulated in Section 14(1) of THE RIGHT OF
CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009.
(d) No child shall be denied admission in a school for lack of age
proof, as stipulated in Section 14(2) of THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO
FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009.
Therefore, even at elementary education level, there is a clear legislative intent to rely

11-01-2023 (Page 39 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

on statutory Birth Certificates for the purpose of date of birth. The authoritative value of
these certificates is duly affirmed in this scheme.
154. There is no difficulty in correcting CBSE record to bring it in conformity with the
school record. The difficulty arises when a statutory document is not consistent with the
school record. As observed earlier, the version supported by statutory documents could
be reckoned for the purpose of correction in CBSE certificate to make it consistent with
public documents.
155. Post 2018 amendment of Byelaws, even in case of date of birth, corrections are
permitted on two basis-to bring in conformity with school records and in pursuance of
court order. The relevant provision reads thus:
A. "Correction as per the school records:
i. Corrections to correct typographical and other errors to make the
certificate consistent with the school records can be made provided that
corrections in the school records should not have been made after the
submission of application form for admission to Examination to the
Board.
...
...
B. Correction as per Court Orders.
Applications regarding correction in date of birth of candidates will be
considered provided the correction have been admitted by the Court of law. In
cases of correction in date of birth in documents after the court orders caption
will be mentioned on the document "CORRECTION ALLOWED IN DATE OF
BIRTH FROM _______ TO ___ ON (DATED) ____ AS PER COURT ORDER No.
____ DATED ____.
156. When a student applies to a Court of law for prior permission and/or declaration
and produces public document(s), the Court would enter upon an inquiry wherein the
legal presumption would operate in favour of the public document(s) and burden would
shift on the party opposing the change to rebut the presumption or oppose the claim on
any other ground. The question of genuineness of the document including its contents
would be adjudicated in the same inquiry and the Court of law would permit the desired
change only upon verifying the official records and upon being satisfied of its
genuineness. At the same time, the question of justiciability of the requested changes
would be considered and only upon being satisfied with the need demonstrated by the
student, the Court would grant its permission. The said permission can then be placed
before the Board along with copy of publication in the official gazette and requisite
(prescribed) fee (if any). The Board would then have no locus to make further enquiry
nor would be required to enter upon any further verification exercise.
157. We may now advert to the dictum of the Kerala High Court in Subin Mohammed
MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340. The same has been relied upon in most of
the impugned judgments for permitting corrections. In that decision, the Court
discussed the inadequacies in the Byelaws and issued directions to CBSE to correct date
of birth with reference to statutory Birth Certificates provided the request is found to be
genuine. The operative directions read thus:

11-01-2023 (Page 40 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 41. Hence, to meet the ends of justice, it will be appropriate for this Court to
dispose the Writ Petitions with the following directions:
(i) That CBSE shall correct the entries in the mark sheet of the
Petitioners with reference to their corresponding birth
certificates issued by the statutory authority, if the request is
found to be genuine.
(ii) Genuineness of the birth certificate can be ascertained from the
respective local/statutory authority/Head of the Institution or such
other method, CBSE may deem it fit.
(iii) CBSE can demand in advance a consolidated fee, including all
expenses for processing such applications.
(iv) Each of the Petitioners shall pay ' 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand
only) as cost to CBSE within a period of one month."
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, the task of determining genuineness of the request was left to the CBSE, which
not only goes contrary to our discussion above but also fails to take into account the
limitations of CBSE as a body. While considering requests for changes in certificates,
CBSE cannot act as a court and it cannot effectively consider any request over and
above those requests that merely require bringing the certificates in conformity with the
school records or public documents, as the case may be.
Point No. 4
158. As noticed in the submissions above, there is a conflict of opinion amongst the
High Courts as regards the point of time which would determine the applicability of
Byelaws. The frequent amendments carried out by the CBSE had made it imperative for
the courts to grapple with this question. The immediate question is whether the date of
declaration of result or the date of application for changes would be determinative of
the applicable Byelaws. While addressing this question, the Delhi High Court in Kalpana
Thakur took the view that the Byelaws existing on the date of application would apply,
irrespective of amendment. This view can be discerned from the following paragraphs of
the judgment:
"12.2 In my view, the submission of Mr. Bansal that amended Bye-laws 69.1(i)
would apply, is untenable, for a simple reason that the amendment to the said
bye-law was notified only on 25.06.2015; a date which falls beyond the date on
which the application for change of name was preferred in the instant case. The
argument advanced in support of this submission by Mr. Bansal that the Office
Order was in place prior to the date of the application, in my view, will not
sustain, as the Office Order, is an internal document, which could have no legal
validity till the position taken therein is put in public realm. The very fact that a
notification in respect of the amended Bye-law was issued by Respondent No.
1/CBSE, would show, that the decision to amend bye-law 69.1(i) required a
public notice.
12.3 Consequently, all applications for change of name which are filed prior to
notification dated 25.06.2015, will be governed, in my view, by the unamended
Bye-law 69.1(i). Therefore, quite logically, the Petitioners, in my opinion,

11-01-2023 (Page 41 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 would have to be given the reliefs as sought in the writ petition."
Notably, the question before the Court was slightly different. It was only whether the
unamended Byelaws would continue to apply if the application was preferred before the
date of amendment. Nevertheless, the Kerala High Court in Vyshnav has taken a
different view of the matter and observed that the Byelaws existing on the date of
passing out would apply. It observed thus:
5. On an analysis of the said Rule and amended provision it is evident that, the
first Respondent relied on an incorrect provision in order to non-suit the
Petitioner by rejecting the applications submitted for change of name.
Therefore, Exts. P7 and P9 cannot be sustained under law, since the same is
violative of the Rule provided for the purpose. Petitioner has passed out in the
year 2013 and therefore, the law as it stood then has to be taken in to account,
since there is no retrospective operation to the amendment. Therefore, I quash
Exts. P7 and P9, and direct the first Respondent to re-consider the application
submitted by the Petitioner based on Rule 69(1(i), as it stood before as is
specified above.
159. Considered in the context of the Byelaws, the controversy is actually simple in
nature. The Byelaws consistently provide that the period of limitation is to be calculated
from the date of declaration of the result and issue of certificate. It means that the
period of limitation begins to run against the student after declaration of result and
publication of certificates as the student is put to notice of the contents of the
document, upon its issue. The student can now be said to be in a position to verify the
correctness of the certificate(s). The irresistible outcome of this legal position is that
the Byelaws existing on the date of such declaration/publication of result and issue of
certificate would be relevant for the purpose of effecting changes in the certificates. The
express language of the Byelaws would be defeated if we say that the law existing on
the date of application for recording change would be relevant. That would negate the
very importance of having a period of limitation for correction of the certificates.
160. If the limitation of applicability of Byelaws was to be reckoned from the date of
application for correction/change and not the date of result of the examination
conducted by CBSE, we would be leaving things to a state of uncertainty. For, a student
who could possibly have surpassed the limitation period under unamended Byelaws
would regain the right to change the certificates if the Byelaws existing on the date of
application permit so and provide for a longer period. Similarly, a student who had ten
years for carrying out changes under the unamended Byelaws would lose her right if
Byelaws are amended within the ten-year period so as to provide for a much shorter,
say two years, limitation period. Certainty, consistency and predictability are the
hallmarks of any legal relationship and it is in the interest of public policy that legal
interpretation preserves and protects these hallmarks. This determination, however, is
only to state the legal position and may not have any immediate bearing on the cases
before us.
161. The CBSE also advanced an argument that no changes can be permitted in its
records as there is no fundamental right to claim that changed records be operative
since birth and any change must only be prospective and not retrospective. The crux of
the argument can be traced from paragraph 23 of Rayaan Chawla MANU/DE/1983/2020
: 275 (2020) Delhi Law Times 314 which has been relied upon to buttress this
submission. It reads thus:

11-01-2023 (Page 42 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 2 3 . The legal position that would follow from the above conspectus of the
judgments noted and cited by the learned Counsel for the parties is that
normally a person would have a right to have his name changed subject to
fulfilment of appropriate formalities/procedures to ensure that there is no
misuse or confusion created on account of the change in name. The change of
name is prospective....
Though a well-meaning argument advanced to minimise the possibility of misuse, we
are not inclined to accept it as something that could turn the case. The court, in Rayaan
Chawla MANU/DE/1983/2020 : 275 (2020) Delhi Law Times 314, accepted that
expression of one's name in the manner of their choice is indeed a fundamental right
Under Article 19(1)(a), but held that the right is prospective and does not extend to
permitting changes in the documents already issued by the Board. It is pertinent to note
that once changes are permitted in the documents of CBSE, it does not ipso facto mean
that the changes are given a retrospective effect. The changes are indeed prospective
and to signify that a remedial measure is provided in the Byelaws, as existing presently.
They provide for the requirement of adding a caption/annotation with the date of such
change along with the changed particulars so as to indicate within the certificate that
the changes have been made on a date subsequent to the date of publishing the
certificates. The requirement of caption/annotation is indeed a sufficient safeguard to
prevent the usage of subsequently altered documents as unchanged original records.
Point No. 5
ISSUANCE OF MANDAMUS IN CONTRAVENTION OF BYELAWS
162. The next issue for consideration is whether it is proper for the High Courts to
issue mandamus to the CBSE for correction of certificates in complete contravention of
the Byelaws, without examining the validity of the Byelaws. For issuing such directions,
reliance has been placed upon Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT
340, wherein the Court noted that the case does not involve correction of a
typographical nature, as permissible in the Byelaws, but went on to uphold the right of
the student to apply for changes on the basis of statutory certificate. It observed thus:
3 5 . Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that the bye law of CBSE
cannot be applied to the fact situation. But to reconcile the date of birth entry in
the mark sheet with that of the entry in the statutory certificate, the candidates
should not be left without any remedy. Their right to approach the Court for
redressing their grievance cannot be ruled out.
The court then delineated the principles for issuance of writ of mandamus and noted
that in the strict sense, a mandamus would not lie but considering the damage that the
student could face as regards his career prospects, the permission was granted. In
paragraph 39, it noted thus:
39. It is contended that the future prospects of the Petitioners to study or get
employment abroad, will be substantially affected if the entry of date of birth in
the mark sheet does not tally with that in the birth certificate. Though a writ
of mandamus cannot be issued in the strict sense, we are of the view
that, failure to exercise jurisdiction may put the Petitioners to serious
hardship. Hence, to render justice, it is always open for the Court to
pass appropriate orders, taking into account the facts and
circumstances of each case. However, if disputed questions of fact arises, it
will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the matter.

11-01-2023 (Page 43 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 (emphasis supplied)
The law regarding the writ of mandamus is settled. The foremost requirement for
issuance of mandamus is the existence of a legal right against a body which is either a
public body or a non-public body performing a public function. In Binny Ltd.
MANU/SC/0470/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 657, this Court summed up the principle thus:
29. Thus, it can be seen that a writ of mandamus or the remedy Under Article
226 is pre-eminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a
remedy against private wrongs. It is used for enforcement of various rights of
the public or to compel public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties and
to act within their bounds. It may be used to do justice when there is wrongful
exercise of power or a refusal to perform duties. This writ is admirably
equipped to serve as a judicial control over administrative actions. This writ
could also be issued against any private body or person, specially in view of the
words used in Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the scope of mandamus
is limited to enforcement of public duty. The scope of mandamus is determined
by the nature of the duty to be enforced, rather than the identity of the
authority against whom it is sought. If the private body is discharging a public
function and the denial of any right is in connection with the public duty
imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast
on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such
power is immaterial, but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in
such action. Sometimes, it is difficult to distinguish between public law and
private law remedies. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol.
30, p. 82,
1317. A public authority is a body, not necessarily a county council,
municipal corporation or other local authority, which has public or
statutory duties to perform and which perform those duties and carries
out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private
profit.
There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The
facts of each case decide the point.
In the present case, the question is not whether CBSE was amenable to writ of
mandamus or not. For, we have already held the Board being a public body is
performing a public function. The question is whether there was an enforceable legal
right in favour of students to seek such a direction and whether Byelaws have the force
of law and directions can be issued by the court only in conformity thereof.
163. The impugned judgments categorically note that the request for changes could not
be permitted as per the Byelaws. Thus, there was no demonstration or inquiry to
determine the existence of any legal right in favour of students. Even if we assume that
courts issued directions purely on the basis of fundamental rights, there is no
discussion or inquiry in this regard. More so, there is no attempt to examine the vires of
the Byelaws in light of the breach of fundamental rights, as discussed in the initial part
of this judgment. Absent any such adverse determination on the validity of the
applicable rules, the fundamental principle of Rule of law demands that such Rules be
given their intended effect. Even if a constitutional Court feels that the case at hand is
deserving of an extraordinary remedy, it may do so using its wide powers Under Article
226 but only upon specific appraisal of the facts of the case and after duly
demonstrating the extraordinary character of the case. Despite holding that the prayers

11-01-2023 (Page 44 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

are impermissible under the Byelaws, the Courts in the present set of cases went on to
issue directions to the Board without having any regard to the factual circumstances of
the case or to the nature of changes sought by the students, by mechanically relying
upon the dictum in Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340. We
must note that Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340 is not in
challenge before us but must be now understood in terms of opinion recorded in this
judgment. Our concern is with the manner in which mechanical reliance has been placed
upon the earlier decision for deciding cases which involved an altogether different set of
changes.
164. Once a Court of law notes that the applicable Rules do not permit it to grant a
particular relief and it still goes on to grant the relief on sympathetic grounds, such
decisions can in no way be treated as precedents. We are constrained to note that
following such decision as precedent will be in utter disregard of the well-established
principle of "equity acts in personam" and, thus, courts cannot deploy equity in "rem"
by replicating the same order, disregarding the personal characteristics of the case at
hand. There can be no application of Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1)
KLT 340 to a different set of facts.
165. The High Courts, being constitutional Courts, are duly vested with the power to
review any law in light of Part-III. Despite being called upon to do so, if they choose
not to do it, the same cannot be countenanced. There cannot be mechanical directions
by way of mandamus to a public authority without going into the veracity of the claims
and without sufficiently explaining why the case demands extraordinary treatment.
166. In fact, in Md. Sarifuz Zaman MANU/SC/1101/2003 : (2003) 12 SCC 408, a two-
Judge Bench of this Court noted that such exercise of power in itself would be arbitrary.
It observed thus:
10....People, institutions and government departments, etc.--all attach
a very high degree of reliability, near finality, to the entries made in
the certificates issued by the Board. The frequent exercise of power to
correct entries in certificates and that too without any limitation on
exercise of such power would render the power itself arbitrary and
may result in eroding the credibility of certificates issued by the Board.
We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the contention that the applicants
seeking correction of entries in such certificates have any such right or vested
right.
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, the Courts need to be extra cautious and alive to the immediate factual position
before permitting changes. No two requests for change of name or change in date of
birth can be viewed with the same judicial eye. Sometimes, change of name could be a
necessity, sometimes it could be a pure exercise of freewill without any need. As long
as Byelaws or the applicable Rules permit so, there is no occasion for any court to deny
such relief. But when Byelaws do not permit for the same, the Court must be
circumspect before issuing directions, that too without commenting upon the validity of
the Byelaws and without demonstrating the rights which are at stake-constitutional or
legal.
167. Before proceeding further, we must briefly note that the dictum of this Court in
Md. Sarifuz Zaman MANU/SC/1101/2003 : (2003) 12 SCC 408 has been relied upon by
the Board to contend that it prohibits any change in contravention of the Byelaws as it

11-01-2023 (Page 45 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

does not recognize any legal right to claim such changes beyond the prescribed
conditions. It has also been asserted that Md. Sarifuz Zaman MANU/SC/1101/2003 :
(2003) 12 SCC 408 and Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340
contradict each other. Whether the two judgments are in conflict with each other is an
examination that is not called for. For, we have not placed any reliance upon Subin
Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340 for deciding this case and also
because Md. Sarifuz Zaman MANU/SC/1101/2003 : (2003) 12 SCC 408 is a judgment of
this Court as against Subin Mohammed MANU/KE/2575/2015 : 2016 (1) KLT 340 is a
judgment of the Kerala High Court. It requires no reiteration that even if a conflict
exists, the judgment of this Court must prevail under all circumstances unless there is
another judgment of larger Bench of this Court which takes a different view.
168. Be that as it may, we must examine the dictum of this Court in Md. Sarifuz Zaman
MANU/SC/1101/2003 : (2003) 12 SCC 408. The case involved a request for correction
of clerical nature in date of birth to bring it in conformity with the correct school
records. Paragraph 3 notes thus:
3 . One of the Respondents, a student, having taken his education in
Government Boys Higher Secondary School, passed the matriculation
examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, in the
year 1991. Thereafter, he passed higher secondary examination and then BSc
examination in the year 1998. When he filed the writ petition, he was
undergoing a course of study in computers. At that point of time, on 12-10-
1999, he moved an application to the Board complaining that his date of birth
was wrongly mentioned in the school records as 30-5-1974, while his actual
date of birth was 16-8-1975. The mistaken date of birth, as forwarded by the
school, had crept into the admit card issued by the Board. The writ Petitioner
student pleaded that he did not realise the importance of the correct date of
birth being entered into the school records, and therefore, he did not also
realise the implications thereof until he was prompted in moving the
application. The application moved by the Respondent to the Principal of the
school, was forwarded by the latter to the Board. The Principal indicated that
the age of the Respondent was entered as 16-8-1975 in the admission register
and other school records, but it was by mistake that while filling the form of the
Board examination, the date of birth was wrongly entered as 30-5-1974. The
Principal described the mistake as "clerical" and recommended for its
correction. As the Board did not take any decision on the application, the
Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court.
The Court was considering the Regulations framed under the Assam Secondary
Education Act, 1961 which provided for a three years' period post the declaration of
result for effecting corrections in their certificates. The student approached the Board
after the expiry of three years and thus, the primary question before the Court was only
whether the three years' period would be enforced as per Regulations or any relaxation
could be given. The Court refused to give any relaxation stating that expiry of limitation
would extinguish the remedy. In paragraph 12, it notes thus:
12. Delay defeats discretion and loss of limitation destroys the remedy itself.
Delay amounting to laches results in benefit of discretionary power being
denied on principles of equity. Loss of limitation resulting into depriving of the
remedy, is a principle based on public policy and utility and not equity alone.
There ought to be a limit of time by which human affairs stand settled and
uncertainty is lost. Regulation 8 confers a right on the applicant and a power

11-01-2023 (Page 46 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

 coupled with an obligation on the Board to make correction in the date of birth
subject to the ground of wrong calculation or clerical error being made out. A
reasonable procedure has been prescribed for processing the application
through the Inspector of Schools who would verify the school records and
submit report to the Board so as to exclude from consideration the claims other
than those permissible within the framework of Regulation 8. Power to pass
order for correction is vested on a high functionary like Secretary of the Board.
An inaccuracy creeping in at the stage of writing the certificates only, though all
other prior documents are correct in all respects, is capable of being corrected
within a period of three years from the date of issuance of certificate.
It, then, held the three years' period to be a reasonable time as it is sufficient time for a
student to notice any error in her certificates. Paragraph 13 notes thus:
13. Three-year period provided by the Regulation, is a very reasonable period.
On the very date of issuance of the certificate, the student concerned is put to
notice as to the entries made in the certificate. Everyone remembers his age
and date of birth. The student would realise within no time that the date of
birth as entered in the certificate is not correct, if that be so, once the
certificate is placed in his hands. Based on the certificate the applicant would
seek admission elsewhere in an educational institution or might seek a job or
career where he will have to mention his age and date of birth. Even if he failed
to notice the error on the date of issuance of the certificate, he would come to
know the same shortly thereafter. Thus, the period of three years, as prescribed
by Regulation 3, is quite reasonable. It is not something like prescribing a
period of limitation for filing a suit. The prescription of three years is laying
down of a dividing line before which the power of the Board to make correction
ought to be invoked and beyond which it may not be invoked. Belated
applications, if allowed to be received, may open a Pandora's box. Records may
not be available and evidence may have been lost. Such evidence--even
convenient evidence--may be brought into existence as may defy scrutiny. The
prescription of three years' bar takes care of all such situations. The provision
is neither illegal nor beyond the purview of Section 24 of the Act and also
cannot be called arbitrary or unreasonable. The applicants seeking rectification
within a period of three years form a class by themselves and such prescription
has a reasonable nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. No fault can be
found therewith on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It can be noticed that apart from a wholly different factual matrix, the Court in Md.
Sarifuz Zaman MANU/SC/1101/2003 : (2003) 12 SCC 408 was dealing with a very
narrow question of reasonability of the limitation period for correcting clerical mistakes
under the umbrella of a statutory law. The Court had no occasion to deal with
circumstances wherein a person would want to change her name out of her freewill in
exercise of her guaranteed fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Court was
looking at it as a purely civil transaction and in fact, treated it like one while speaking
of how the expiry of limitation would entirely bar the remedy. As already observed
above, we reiterate that we see a difference between rights originating under the civil
laws and rights considered to be fundamental under the Constitution and protected as
such. The exercise of a fundamental right can, at best, be regulated on reasonable
grounds but not entirely foreclosed without a strong and legitimate purpose. Except that
the dictum in Md. Sarifuz Zaman MANU/SC/1101/2003 : (2003) 12 SCC 408 pertains to
the specific facts of its case and also because no prejudice was actually caused to the
student in that case (the changes were anyway permitted), we say no more.

11-01-2023 (Page 47 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS TO CBSE
169. Although we have discussed the broad issues canvassed before us, in the ultimate
analysis the real dispute requiring resolution is about the nature of correction or
change, as the case may be, permissible to be carried by the CBSE at the instance of the
student including past student. As noted earlier, broadly, two situations would arise.
170. The first is where the incumbent wants "correction" in the certificate issued by the
CBSE to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. As we
have held there is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any
precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for
which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant Regulations. While doing so,
it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such as, to
file sworn affidavit making necessary declaration and to indemnify the CBSE from any
claim against it by third party because of such correction. The CBSE would be justified
in insisting for surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original
certificate, as the case may be) issued by it for replacing it with the fresh certificate to
be issued after carrying out necessary corrections with caption/annotation against the
changes carried out and the date of such correction. It may retain the original entries as
it is except in respect of correction of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten.
The fresh certificate may also contain disclaimer that the CBSE cannot be held
responsible for the genuineness of the school records produced by the incumbent in
support of the request to record correction in the original CBSE certificate. The CBSE
can also insist for reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of
administrative expenses for issuing fresh certificate. At the same time, the CBSE cannot
impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only
before publication of results. Such a condition, as we have held, would be unreasonable
and excessive. We repeat that if the application for recording correction is based on the
school records as it obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of certificate
by the CBSE, it will be open to CBSE to provide for reasonable limitation period within
which the application for recording correction in certificate issued by it may be
entertained by it. However, if the request for recording change is based on changed
school records post the publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, the
candidate would be entitled to apply for recording such a change within the reasonable
limitation period prescribed by the CBSE. In this situation, the candidate cannot claim
that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in the school records because
such a change would occur obviously at her instance. If she makes such application for
correction of the school records, she is expected to apply to the CBSE immediately after
the school records are modified and which ought to be done within a reasonable time.
Indeed, it would be open to the CBSE to reject the application in the event the period
for preservation of official records under the extant Regulations had expired and no
record of the candidate concerned is traceable or can be reconstructed. In the case of
subsequent amendment of school records, that may occur due to different reasons
including because of choice exercised by the candidate regarding change of name. To
put it differently, request for recording of correction in the certificate issued by the
CBSE to bring it in line with the school records of the incumbent need not be limited to
application made prior to publication of examination results of the CBSE.
171. As regards request for "change" of particulars in the certificate issued by the
CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate
are not consistent with the school records. Such a request could be made in two
different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate,
Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate

11-01-2023 (Page 48 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the
acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by
public documents pertaining to the candidate.
(a) Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption
in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public
documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those
documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the
certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to
certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be
prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing
declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in
lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for issuing Public
Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the
fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original
certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the
applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation
against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in
exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been
recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain
original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation
referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of
right to be forgotten).
(b) However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the
basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public
document, that request may be entertained upon insisting for prior
permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the
Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate
original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of
prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above,
retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in
exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the
date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of
CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the
mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.
172. In light of the above, in exercise of our plenary jurisdiction, we direct the CBSE to
process the applications for correction or change, as the case may be, in the 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, the CBSE
shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated
mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificates
already issued or to be issued by it.
173. Accordingly, we dispose of the cases before us with directions to the CBSE as
noted in paragraphs 170 to 172 above. No order as to costs.

1 for short, "CBSE" or "Board", as the case may be

11-01-2023 (Page 49 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi

2 for short, "Byelaws"
3 For short, "1872 Act"
4 LPA 315/2017
5 "9. The Board shall have the following powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(xvi) To do all such or other things as may be necessary in order to further the
objectives of the Board as a body constituted for regulating and maintaining the
standard of secondary education."
6 "16. POWERS OF THE BOARD TO MAKE REGULATIONS
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In particular and without prejudice to any generality of the foregoing powers, the
Board may make Regulations for all or any of the following matters, namely:
.....
(f) The conditions for the award of certificates of the Board;"
7 "18. The Board and its Committees may make Bye-laws, consistent with this Resolution
and the Regulations, for the following purposes, namely:
(a) Laying down the procedure to be observed at their meetings and the number of
members required to form a quorum;
(b) Providing for all matters which, consistent with this Resolution and the Regulations,
are to be prescribed by Bye-laws; and
(c) Providing for all other matters solely concerning the Board and its Committees and
not provided for by the Resolution and the Regulations."
8 Now known as "Ministry of Human Resource Development"
9 Chintamanrao v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0008/1950 : AIR 1951 SC 118
10 The State of Madras v. V.G. Row MANU/SC/0013/1952 : AIR 1952 SC 196
11 for short, "UIDAI"
12 List is merely illustrative, not exhaustive.
13 for short, "MoEA"

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

11-01-2023 (Page 50 of 50) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi