Rajasthan HC notice in plea against insistence on Father’s name in Public Documents

The Rajasthan High Court recently issued notice in a plea challenging the conventional insistence on referring to the father’s name in various public documents, as opposed to giving equal weightage to the mother’s name as well..20-year old Vriddhi Sawlani moved the plea in the Jaipur Bench of the High Court through advocates Siddharth Ranka, NK Baid, Muzaffar Iqbal, Saurav Harsh and Pallavi Bhargava following the untimely death of her mother..In her petition, it is submitted that neither she, nor her minor brother, wish to associate themselves with their estranged father in various public documents. However, their efforts to remove such references to their father in public documents proved to be difficult owing to the fact that Indian law prioritises naming the father of the citizen for identification purposes. The petition states,.“India being a fiercely patriarchal society, various laws/statutes/acts/rules framed by the Government of India or/and Government of Rajasthan or/and Urban Local Authority where- under a person is obliged to obtain various identity card / address proof for multiple purposes they invariably force a person to mandatorily state his/her fathers’ name. Mother’s name, if permitted, is optional only.“.Sawlani has referred to an illustrative list of over 20 public documents, including Aadhaar, ration card, etc. which prioritises mandating the father’s name for identifying the applicant. As noted in the petition,.“… under the afore-said identity card’s/address proof even if the name of the mother is allowed to be mentioned, then broadly it is permitted only when the mother is a single mother or else the mother’s name is allowed as an optional name and not otherwise. However, the father’s name is required to be mentioned mandatorily. In the instant case, the petitioner’s, would be forced to use the name of RKS in each and every document, even when emotionally and morally he has lost the right & respect to be called as petitioner’s father.“.The petition goes on to refer to several case laws including ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), Mamta Swami v. State of Rajasthan, Shalu Nigam v Regional Passport Officer, the Adultery decriminalisation case, the Puttaswamy case, the Sabarimala judgment as well as the case of Navtej Singh Jouhar to highlight that over time, the judiciary has emphasised that conventional notions of patriarchy should be done away with and that an individual’s autonomy should be respected..Placing reliance on these cases, the petitioner has contended that her decision to dissociate herself from her father when it comes to public identification should also be respected..In view of the same, she has prayed that rules and laws which force a person to mandatorily refer to the father’s name be declared unconstitutional. Notably, in view of her minor brother’s position in this case, the petitioner also calls for the introduction of Legal Emancipation laws for minors in India, akin to those prevalent in the US..Further, it has been prayed that the Court direct the government to allow persons the option of choosing between referring to either parent in public documents. Moreover, a direction is also sought so that persons may be allowed the right to remove reference to their father’s name in public documents..In fact, Sawlani has also moved a second writ petition challenging the Rajasthan High Court registry’s classification of her above writ petition as ‘defective’, on account of her not furnishing her father’s name at the time of executing the affidavit..In this regard, Sawlani has challenged the validity of Rules 41 and 128 of the Rules of The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952. Hence, the second writ petition was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution, “seeking right to refer to fathers’/mothers’ name at the time of execution of Affidavit and in the title of the petitions/application/etc. being filed before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court.”.The High Court has clubbed both petitions together and issued notice..Read the Petitions: