VANI S. v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

2. VANI S., D/O SHYAM C.L. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. TOSHANI V. D/O. VANI S., AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, (1) AND (2) R/AT NO.152, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, MARUTHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, VANI .S. (BY SRI SWAROOP S., ADVOCATE) AND:

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.320, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS

THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 061. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MILIND DANGE, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6539/2021 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT AT BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2023 in OS No.6539/2021 on the file of the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ for short). By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration and mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to change the religion and name of the plaintiffs in the records maintained by them.

2. Brief facts: Plaintiff No.1, the mother of plaintiff No.2, is originally a Hindu by caste converted to Islam in 2017 and assumed the name as ‘Zara S’ after having married Faayes - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR Kunju, and their marriage was registered before the Waqf Board. From the wedding plaintiff No.2 was born and her name was ‘Mehar Faayes’. It is stated that after divorce by Khulanama in the year 2020, plaintiff No.1 reverted to Hinduism and resumed the name of ‘Vani S.’ So also she sought to change her daughter's religion to Hinduism and rename her ‘Toshani.V’. Notices are published newspaper and affidavit, however the BBMP insisted on a Court decree before altering the records.

The defendants raised a plea of not maintainability of the suit and notice under Section 80 CPC was improper and proper course was under Section 482 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The specific plea of the defendants was that only clerical errors can be corrected under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Act’), major corrections like religion and father's name are beyond jurisdiction. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR

The Trial Court upon appreciation held that the plaintiffs did not publish conversion/re-conversion in Central Government Gazette, which is a mandatory step. Civil Courts jurisdiction to declare or alter caste/religion records and remedy lies with the competent authorities. Further, held that the plaintiffs’ evidence did not establish legal compliance for official record change and correction of religion or father's name is not a clerical error, but a substantive alteration, outside Civil Court's scope. By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents-State.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court erred in holding gazette publication as mandatory, without citing any statutory basis for such a requirement. It is urged that in RFA No.644/2019 in the case of Yathish Kumar Vs. The Commissioner and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR Others, this Court decreed the suit for change of name even in the absence of gazette notification or newspaper notification, recognizing that the name is a matter of individual identity. Reliance is also placed on the decision in RFA No.322/2023, Gunda Naika vs State of Karnataka and Others wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed rectification of the name of school and birth records, acknowledging the prejudice to a student if such correction is denied. It is further submitted that plaintiff No.2, a minor, is seriously prejudiced and her school authorities insist on change in the birth certificate before effecting correction in their records. Non-correction of her credentials would affect her education, future admission and examination records. It is submitted that while the correction of name is sought, they concede that the change of religion cannot be effected through a civil decree as it is outside the scope of the Act.

Per contra, learned AGA for the State submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR either in law or on facts. It is submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit, as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare or alter entries relating to religion in birth records. Further, the Joint Director of Statistics, who is the competent authority to effect correction in birth certificate was not impleaded, rendering the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The insistence on gazette publication is not a mere requirement invented by the trial Court, it is part of the standard procedure followed across the country for formal recognition of change of name and religion, ensuring authenticity and preventing fraudulent claims. In the absence of gazette notification, mere affidavits or newspaper publication cannot bind the statutory authorities to alter official records. Under Section 15 of the Act, only clerical or formal errors can be corrected in birth register. Substantive correction, such as a change of religion or father's name fall outside the scope of the Act. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and does not warrant any interference. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arises for consideration is: i. Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have not published the change of name and religion in the official gazette/Central Government portal? ii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for correction of religion the birth certificate maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths?

The trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their change of name and religion in the Official Gazette/Central Government portal. It held that without such publication, the plaintiffs were not entitled to declaration or rectification in the birth certificate. The trial Court failed to indicate any statutory provisions, Rules or binding notification mandating publishing in the official gazette as a condition precedent of recognition of change of name. While newspaper publications and affidavits were produced - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR by the plaintiffs, the trial Court rested its entire reasoning on Gazette notification without demonstrating the legal foundation of such requirement. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gunda Naika (supra) has held at para No.12 as under:

12. The Trial Court's reasoning that the appellant has not followed the procedure prescribed by the State and the Central Government is also not tenable. The respondents are in no position to point out any statutory provision or rule or Government order or circular prescribing the procedure for the change of name. On the other hand, the perusal of the circular, dated 02.05.2000 shows that the only pre-requirement for effecting the change of name in the educational records by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions is the obtaining of the decree by the applicant at the hands of the competent civil court.

This court recognized the entitlement of a student to seek correction of name in the school and birth records, having regard to the practical prejudice that may otherwise ensue. Under identical circumstances in the case of Yathish Kumar (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of this - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR Court decreed the suit permitting change of name, even in the absence of gazette notification, it was held that name is a matter of personal identity and individual has a right to seek its correction in public records upon establishing bonafides. The Co-ordinate Bench at para No.6 held as under: “6. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will clearly indicate that the trial court committed a grave and serious error of law, fact and jurisdiction failing consider and appreciate unimpeached, uncontrovered and unchallenged pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff coupled with there being no rebuttal pleadings or evidence adduced by the respondents – defendants, all of which cumulatively established that the plaintiff was entitled to change his name from Yathish Kumar .L / Yathish Kumar.L to Yathish Lakshman Kumar. It is relevant to state that the trial court dismissed the suit, mainly on the ground that the appellant had not followed the prescribed requisite procedure by filing an Affidavit for change of name and taking out paper publication. In this context, the trial court has misread and misconstrued the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Doresanamma vs. State of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:36905 RFA No. 1395 of 2023 HC-KAR Karnataka & Others – RFA No.284/2014 dated

02.09.2016, apart from not considering the decision of this Court in Gunda Naika vs. State of Karnataka & Others – RFA No.322/2013 dated 10.12.2013, wherein this Court permitted the respective plaintiffs – appellants to change their names as sought for by them, by directing them to publish the change of name in the daily newspaper.”