Right to Change One's Name

Right to Change One’s Name

Never Miss an Important Update! Assured Discounts on New Products!

Table of contents

Context (TP): Recent and past High Court rulings, particularly from Allahabad and Delhi HCs, underscore the fundamental right to identity and name change under Articles 19, 21 and 14 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Basis of Right to Name

Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes expressing one’s identity through a chosen name.
Article 21: Ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which judicially extends to include the right to self-identity and name.
Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law, making arbitrary state actions against legitimate name changes unconstitutional.

Kerala HC 2020 Ruling Cited: Expressing one’s name is part of both Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
Name reflects personal identity, and document mismatches undermine autonomy and privacy.
Arbitrary denial of name changes breaches Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21, infringing dignity, identity and personal liberty.
Right to Name & Identity: Considered a component of the “right to live with dignity.”
Not Absolute, But Protected: The right to name is fundamental but not unqualified. It is subject to reasonable restrictions only under Article 19(2) in the interest of sovereignty, public order, etc.
Proportionality Principle: Citing the Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, the state must justify restrictions with proportional and lawful reasons.

Right to Identity under Article 21: Refusal to update certificates violated the individual’s right to dignity and personal identity protected under Article 21.
Caste Stigma and Choice: Changing a surname to escape caste-based discrimination is a valid and constitutionally protected personal choice.
The state cannot withhold identity recognition due to historical social disadvantage linked to caste.

Right to Dignity: Name symbolises self-respect, especially for those escaping caste or gender stigma.
Strengthens Privacy Jurisprudence: Builds upon the Puttaswamy judgement to treat personal identity as private and inviolable.
Guides State Conduct: Sets clear standards on when and how restrictions can be justified.

Identity Inconsistency: Denial of name change leads to fragmented identities across documents.
Caste-Based Prejudice: Bureaucratic hesitation stems from fear of misuse in reservation/caste benefits.
Administrative Rigidity: Authorities like CBSE failed to acknowledge Gazette notifications and legal name change steps.