No Law Prohibits Name Change in Birth Certificate—Registrar Cannot Deny Request Merely for Lack of Provision: Karnataka High Court

A Person Cannot Be Forced to Retain a Name Against Their Will Simply Because the Law Has Not Been Updated - In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has held that the absence of a specific legal provision cannot be used to deny a person’s right to change their name in a birth certificate. Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda, delivering the verdict on February 6, 2025, quashed the refusal of the Udupi Registrar of Births and Deaths to allow the petitioner’s name to be changed from “Adhrith Bhat” to “Shrijith Bhat” and directed the authorities to issue a fresh Birth Certificate reflecting both names.

The petitioner, a minor represented by his mother, challenged the Registrar’s refusal to change his name on the ground that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, does not provide for name changes. The Court, however, found this interpretation too rigid and legally unsound.

"It is common in our country for individuals to change names for astrological, personal, religious, or cultural reasons. The law must evolve to accommodate such legitimate requests rather than create unnecessary obstacles," the Court observed.

"Law Lacks Clarity, but That Cannot Deny Fundamental Rights"
The Registrar had rejected the request citing Section 15 of the Act, which only allows corrections in case of errors, fraudulent entries, or clerical mistakes, but not voluntary name changes. The Court disagreed, noting that:

"There is no specific prohibition in the Act against a name change. The mere absence of an express provision does not mean the right does not exist. The law must be interpreted in a manner that serves justice, rather than creates an artificial restriction."

The Court pointed out that while Section 14 allows parents to register a child's name later if it was not initially recorded, there is no provision for subsequently changing a registered name. This, the Court held, was a legislative gap that needed urgent reform.

"Legislature Must Act: Karnataka Law Commission Had Recommended Amendments Over a Decade Ago"
Referring to the Karnataka Law Commission’s 24th Report (2013), the Court observed that the Commission had recommended amendments to allow name changes for reasons such as personal choice, marriage, adoption, religious conversion, or nationality change. However, no legislative action had been taken.

"The failure to amend the law despite clear recommendations forces individuals into unnecessary litigation to assert a simple right. The legislature must act to prevent such hardships," the Court said.

"Parents Have the Right to Rename Their Child—State Cannot Impose an Unreasonable Restriction"
The Court recognized that name changes are a legitimate personal right and devised an interim procedure that authorities must follow until the law is amended. It directed that: "A person seeking a name change should submit an affidavit affirming the change. The Registrar must verify the identity and record both the original and changed names to prevent misuse. The Birth Certificate must carry an endorsement reflecting both names."

The Court clarified that this procedure would ensure transparency while allowing people to exercise their right to change their name.

"Endorsement Quashed—Registrar Ordered to Change Name and Issue New Birth Certificate"
In a decisive ruling, the High Court quashed the Registrar’s refusal dated 04.11.2023 and ordered that the petitioner’s name be changed to "Shrijith Bhat" in the Birth Register.

"Since the date of birth and other details remain unchanged, there is no legal impediment to modifying the name," the Court held.

The Registrar was directed to issue a new Birth Certificate reflecting both the original and changed names to maintain transparency and authenticity.

"A Landmark Judgment in Favor of Identity Rights"
This progressive ruling sets an important precedent for name change requests in India. The lack of an explicit legal provision should not be used as an excuse to deny individuals the right to correct their identity.

By allowing name changes through an affidavit-based procedure, the Court has provided a practical solution until legislative reforms are enacted. With the Court urging legislative amendments, this case could pave the way for a uniform, nationwide process for name changes in official records, ensuring ease and legal certainty for citizens.
 

Date of Decision: 06 February 2025