"Right to control one's identity must remain with individual:" Supreme Court strikes down CBSE bye-law restricting change of name on certificates

In a significant blow for individual right and freedom of expression, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the right to control one's identity must remain with the individual, thereby upholding the rights of students to change their names on Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) certificates (Jigya Yadav v. CBSE)..A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari held that CBSE citing administrative efficiency to make it practically impossible for a student to alter his/ her name in Board certificates is an unreasonable restriction and highly disproportionate.."The right to control one’s identity must remain with the individual, subject, of course, to reasonable restrictions," the Court ruled..The Court further stated that CBSE, which deals with maintenance of educational standards, cannot arrogate to itself the power to impact identity of students who enrol with it..The Court, therefore, concluded that provision in CBSE bye-laws restricting change of name “post publication of examination results” is excessively restrictive and violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. "We hold that 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," the Court held However, the Court clarified that the provision for change of name in the bye-laws is clearly severable from those for corrections in name/date of birth and, therefore, the Court's determination shall not affect them except as regards the condition of limitation period..The Court was hearing a plea challenging bye-law 69.1 primarily on the ground that it does not permit any correction in name, either of the candidate or his/her parents in the school certificate unless such correction/alterations are necessary for bringing the documents in conformity with the school record.The plea was an appeal against a 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which had turned down the challenge..The Delhi High Court in its judgment had held that courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters.."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," the High Court had stated. .The High Court had further stated that "it will be 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.: .The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted that it is settled law that the right to expression of one’s name in the manner of their choice is indeed a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), though such changes would have prospective application only. The Court observed that, in the instant case, the bye-laws put a complete embargo on change of name. "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," the Court noted. The CBSE took a stand that the right under Article 19(1)(a) are subject to reasonable restrictions. The overriding State interest, as per the Board, to retain this stringency is nothing but efficiency of administration, it contended.The Court, however, disagreed stating that 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," the Court said. It opined that 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, the Court said.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, the Court made it clear. .The Supreme Court, therefore, directed 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..Further the court also ordered that the bye-laws of the board are amended to reflect the guidelines laid down by the court.The following guidelines were issued by the Court: .1. CBSE to insist for a sworn affidavit to be given by the incumbent making necessary declaration and also to indemnify the CBSE.2. 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.3. 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 precaution4. CBSE to ask 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 certificate5. CBSE 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.6. The CBSE can also insist for reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses for issuing fresh certificate..[Read Judgment]