The Allahabad High Court in Rashmi Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko and ors, observed that the right to change the name is a facet of a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and that such a right cannot be denied.
The Court relied upon Jigya Yadav (Minor) v. CBSE and others , and also on Kabir Jaiswal v. Union of India and others; wherein it is now clearly well settled that the right to change the name is a facet of a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and cannot be denied.
Further, the Court observed that “In the present case, the foundation based upon which the impugned orders have been passed namely that the request was made beyond the limitation prescribed under Regulation 7 is wholly untenable and the same militates against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anand Singh v. U.P. Board of Secondary Education (supra).”
In Anand Singh vs. State of U.P., this court while interpreting the Regulation 7 of Chapter III came to the conclusion and recorded as under:
"The substantive part of Regulation 7 provides for the correction of such entries in the certificate which have arisen because of any inadvertent clerical mistake or omission in the records of the Board, or the Institution last attended by the candidate. It also provides that for this purpose, the candidate has to submit an application within three years of the date of issue of the certificate. However, under the proviso, any spelling mistake occurring in the name of the applicant or in the name of the applicant's father/mother in the certificate can be corrected when an application is filed for this purpose. The nature of the error which is contemplated in the substantive part of Regulation 7 is not the same as contemplated in its proviso nor is any time limit set out in the proviso. It would be useful to examine the particulars of the candidate that are contained in a certificate issued by the Board. They include the year of the examination, the name of the candidate, the names of the parents, date of birth, subjects opted, division obtained, name of the School/Centre, certificate number, appearance as a regular/private candidate and the date of issue of the certificate. Of these, the date of birth, the subjects opted, the year of examination and the division obtained by the candidate are particulars which have an important bearing when admission to higher classes or employment is sought by the candidate. While making any correction in the entries relating to these matters, the requirement of moving the application within three years has to be adhered to as any correction in regard to these entries would have an impact on the rights of other candidates when they seek admission to higher classes or employment. However, the other particulars contained in the certificate, like the name of the candidate or the names of the parents of the candidate are not that relevant and any correction made in regard to these particulars would have no impact on the admission or employment of other candidates. When so considered, we feel persuaded to hold that the time limit of three years prescribed in the substantive part of Regulation 7 for submission of an application for making correction in the certificate issued by the Board in regard to the name of the candidate or the names of the parents of the candidate should not be insisted upon, particularly when the Board itself has considered it appropriate to have no time limit under the proviso for making correction in regard to any spelling mistake in the name of the candidate or his parents. The applicant must, however, explain to the Board the reasons on the basis of which the application could not be submitted earlier and if it is found that the claim is bona fide and is otherwise justified, there is no reason to reject the application, as in the present case, merely on the ground of delay. Undoubtedly, the Board has to examine whether any genuine ground has been made out for correcting the name and it would be open to the Board to consider all the relevant materials pertaining to the request for correction of the name. "