In Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) v. C.B.S.E

Judgment

1. Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

2. Malaviya National Institute Of Technology, Malaviya Nagar, Opp. Redfox Hotel, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur Through Its Registrar.

3. District Institute Of Education And Training, Rawatbhata Road, Engineering College Campus, Kota (Raj).-324001.

4. Jamia Millia Islamia, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Marg Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi -110025, Through Its Authorized Officer.

Lal Chand Meena S/o Shri Motilal Meena, Village And Post Jhopdiya Arand Khera, Tehsil Ladpura, Distt. Kota

6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 112/2024 State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. Versus ----Appellant

1. Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

2. Malaviya National Institute Of Technology, Malaviya Nagar, Opp. Redfox Hotel, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur Through Its Registrar.

3. District Institute Of Education And Training, Rawatbhata Road, Engineering College Campus, Kota (Raj.)324001

4. Jamia Millia Islamia, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Marg Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi- 110025, Through Its [2025:RJ-JP:36616-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-675/2022] Authorized Officer.

5. Lal Chand Meena S/o Shri Motilal Meena, Village And Post Jhopdiya Arand Khera, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG with Mr. S.M. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Namo Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Ms. Stuti Dave, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Madhu Meena, Adv. for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Nathu Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. M.S. Raghav, Adv. with Mr. Vishwash Saini, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT 10/09/2025 Order

1. The challenge is to the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge.

3. Service is found to be complete. Vide order dated 04.08.2025, we had observed prima facie that there was no occasion for constitution of Committee by the learned Single Judge in relation to the issues pertaining to change of date of birth, correction of name of applicant(s) or parents’ age etc., as this falls within the exclusive domain of the concerned examination body.

4. In Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. C.B.S.E. (Central Board of Secondary Education) & Ors.: AIR Online 2021 SC 274, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the issues relating to the requests made [2025:RJ-JP:36616-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-675/2022] for correction of entries in the Board Certificate issued by Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as 'CBSE') and after considering all the aspects, a detailed order was passed and observing thus:- “116. Identity, therefore, is an amalgam of various internal and external including acquired characteristics of an individual and name can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity. And therefore, an individual must be in complete control of her name and law must enable her to retain as well as to exercise such control freely “for all times”. Such control would inevitably include the aspiration of an individual to be recognized by a different name for a just cause. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for a guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. In light of Navtej Singh Johar, this freedom would include the freedom to lawfully express one’s identity in the manner of their liking. In other words, expression of identity is a protected element of freedom of expression under the Constitution. 117. Having recognized the existence of this right, the essential question pertains to the rights that flow due to the change of name. The question becomes vital because identity, as stated above, is a combination of diverse set of elements. Navtej Singh Johar dealt with “natural identity” and here we are dealing with name, which can only be perceived as an ‘acquired identity’. Therefore, the precise scope of right and extent of restrictions could only be determined upon deeper examination.

118. To begin with, it is important to explain what we understand by this right to change of name as a constituent element of freedom of expression of identity. Any change in identity of an individual has to go through multiple steps and it cannot be regarded as complete without proper fulfilment of those steps. An individual may self-identify oneself with any title or epithet at any point of time. But the change of identity would not be regarded as formally or legally complete until and unless the State and its agencies take note thereof in their records. After all, in social sphere, an individual is not only recognized by how an individual identifies oneself but also by how his/her official records identify him/her. For, in every public transaction of an individual, official records introduce the person by his/her name and other relevant particulars.

119. Thus, the essential question is whether the aforesaid right to alter name would mean that the State and its agencies are unconditionally bound to reckon the changed identity of the individual and give recognition to the same by altering its records, whenever such request is made by him/her.

120. Going by the very nature of rights under Article 19, the right to get changed name recorded in the official (public) records cannot be an absolute right and as a matter of public policy and larger public interest calls for certain reasonable restrictions to observe consistency and obviate confusion and deceptive attempt. [2025:RJ-JP:36616-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-675/2022]

140. We, thus, hold that the 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. We make it clear that the provision for change of name is clearly severable from those for corrections in name/date of birth and therefore, our determination shall not affect them except as regards the condition of limitation period, in terms of the aforesaid discussion and guidelines stated later. 154. There is no difficulty in correcting CBSE record to bring it in conformity with the school record. The difficulty arises when a statutory document is not consistent with the school record. As observed earlier, the version supported by statutory documents could be reckoned for the purpose of correction in CBSE certificate to make it consistent with public documents. 156. When a student applies to a Court of law for prior permission and/or declaration and produces public document(s), the Court would enter upon an inquiry wherein the legal presumption would operate in favour of the public document(s) and burden would shift on the party opposing the change to rebut the presumption or oppose the claim on any other ground. The question of genuineness of the document including its contents would be adjudicated in the same inquiry and the Court of law would permit the desired change only upon verifying the official records and upon being satisfied of its genuineness. At the same time, the question of justiciability of the requested changes would be considered and only upon being satisfied with the need demonstrated by the student, the Court would grant its permission. The said permission can then be placed before the Board along with copy of publication in the official gazette and requisite (prescribed) fee (if any). The Board would then have no locus to make further enquiry nor would be required to enter upon any further verification exercise. 169. Although we have discussed the broad issues canvassed before us, in the ultimate analysis the real dispute requiring resolution is about the nature of correction or change, as the case may be, permissible to be carried by the CBSE at the instance of the student including past student. As noted earlier, broadly, two situations would arise. 170. The first is where the incumbent wants “correction” in the certificate issued by the CBSE to be made consistent with the particulars mentioned in the school records. As we have held there is no reason for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the extant regulations. While doing so, it can certainly insist for compliance of other conditions by the incumbent, such as, to file sworn affidavit making necessary declaration and to indemnify the CBSE from any claim against it by third party because of such correction. The CBSE would be justified in insisting for surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by it for replacing it with thefresh certificate to be issued after carrying out necessary corrections with caption/annotation against the changes carried out and the date of such correction. It 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36616-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-675/2022] genuineness of the school records produced by the incumbent in support of the request to record correction in the original CBSE certificate. The CBSE can also insist for reasonable prescribed fees to be paid by the incumbent in lieu of administrative expenses for issuing fresh certificate. At the same time, the CBSE cannot impose precondition of applying for correction consistent with the school records only before publication of results. Such a condition, as we have held, would be unreasonable and excessive. We repeat that if the application for recording correction is based on the school records as it obtained at the time of publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, it will be open to CBSE to provide for reasonable limitation period within which the application for recording correction in certificate issued by it may be entertained by it. However, if the request for recording change is based on changed school records post the publication of results and issue of certificate by the CBSE, the candidate would be entitled to apply for recording such a change within the reasonable limitation period prescribed by the CBSE. In this situation, the candidate cannot claim that she had no knowledge about the change recorded in the school records because such a change would occur obviously at her instance. If she makes such application for correction of the school records, she is expected to apply to the CBSE immediately after the school records are modified and which ought to be done within a reasonable time. Indeed, it would be open to the CBSE to reject the application in the event the period for preservation of official records under the extant regulations had expired and no record of the candidate concerned is traceable or can be reconstructed. In the case of subsequent amendment of school records, that may occur due to different reasons including because of choice exercised by the candidate regarding change of name. To put it differently, request for recording of correction in the certificate issued by the CBSE to bring it in line with the school records of the incumbent need not be limited to application made prior to publication of examination results of the CBSE.

171. As regards request for “change” of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate are not consistent with the school records. Such a request could be made in two different situations. The first is on the basis of public documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc. and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith. The second possibility is when the request for change is due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time. That change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the candidate. (a) Reverting to the first category, as noted earlier, there is a legal presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the 1872 Act. Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by the CBSE. Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it. This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be prescribed by the CBSE, such as, of furnishing sworn affidavit containing declaration and to indemnify the CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees in lieu of administrative expenses. The CBSE may also insist for [2025:RJ-JP:36616-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-675/2022] issuing Public Notice and publication in the Official Gazette before recording the change in the fresh certificate to be issued by it upon surrender/return of the original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) by the applicant. The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the basis thereof. In other words, the fresh certificate may retain original particulars while recording the change along with caption/annotation referred to above (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten). insisting (b) However, in the latter situation where the change is to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon for prior permission/declaration by a Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon payment of prescribed fees. The fresh certificate as in other situations referred to above retain the original entry (except in respect of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten) and to insert caption/annotation indicating the date on which it has been recorded and other details including disclaimer of CBSE. This is so because the CBSE is not required to adjudicate nor has the mechanism to verify the correctness of the claim of the applicant.

172. In light of the above, in exercise of our plenary jurisdiction, we direct 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. Even other pending applications and future applications for such request be processed on the same lines and in particular the conclusion and directions recorded hitherto in paragraphs 170 and 171, as may be applicable, until amendment of relevant Byelaws. Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate steps to amend its relevant Byelaws so as to incorporate the stated mechanism for recording correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it.

5. In view of the above detailed judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge was not required to unnecessarily create another Forum for examining the issues relating to change of date of birth, correction of name of applicant(s) or parents’ age etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, passed above, is comprehensive in nature.

6. The CBSE has already issued a circular laying down the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the purpose of change of [2025:RJ-JP:36616-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-675/2022] date of birth, correction of name of applicant(s) or parents’ age etc. The High Court has also directed the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan to adopt the same directions for making the correction accordingly.

7. In view thereto, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge would only create further complications and delay, the entire issue, relating to making the requisite corrections in the certificates of students.

8. We, therefore, deem it proper to set aside the observations made by learned Single Judge with regard to Paras-4, 5 & 7 of the order dated 24.02.2022. The operative part, as directed in Para-6, shall continue to be applicable, as against the CBSE who would take appropriate steps for making necessary corrections.

9. In view of above, the present Special Appeals (Writ) are allowed, to the aforesaid extent.

10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be placed on record in other connected appeal. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/73-74