Shweta v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.

15. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner‟s repeated efforts to correct the errors through proper channels, including formal letters to her school and the CBSE, the authorities have been negligent in addressing the discrepancies. The school and CBSE have failed in their duty to verify the correct information at the time of form submissions, which has resulted in this prolonged injustice. It is argued that the petitioner, having taken reasonable steps, such as publishing corrections in the Deccan Herald and the Gazette of India, has demonstrated a clear intent to rectify the situation. It is stated that under the law, the individuals are entitled to have their correct identity reflected in official records. It is submitted that the petitioner‟s right to have her correct name and parentage recorded is fundamental and constitutionally protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and the right to life, including the right to dignity and identity.

16. Therefore, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that a writ of mandamus be issued, directing the CBSE and the School authorities to correct the petitioner‟s name to „Shweta‟, her father's name to „Sh. Dharampal” and her mother‟s name to „Smt. Santosh Kumari‟ in her 10th-grade certificate and other relevant records. Submissions on Behalf of the CBSE

17. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/ CBSE, wherein it was stated that the present petition is barred by the principles of delay and laches. It is argued on behalf of the CBSE that the petitioner is allegedly seeking correction in her name and in the name of her parents in the certificate of Class 10th issued to her on 29.05.2008 and that she had approached the CBSE in 2021 for the alleged corrections in the certificate issued in 2008, despite being fully aware of the record relating to the examinations held in 2008 and thus, there is a substantial delay on the part of petitioner in approaching the Court.

18. It is submitted on behalf of CBSE that the prayer regarding the alleged correction in the name of the mother is not a simple prayer for correction but for “change of mother of the petitioner”. It is stated that Smt. Kamlesh Sangwan, the name of the mother mentioned in the Certificate dated 29.05.2008, and Smt. Santosh Kumari are two different persons. It is stated that in a writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot change the mother of the petitioner. It is stated that Smt. Kamlesh Sangwan and Smt. Santosh Sangwan are thus necessary and proper parties to the writ petition and this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of not impleading the necessary and proper parties.

19. It is stated that the petitioner, Shweta Sangwan, was a student at Respondent No. 2 school and had appeared for her Class 10th examination in 2008, and the petitioner herself had admitted that the marriage between her biological parents, Sh. Dharampal Sangwan and Smt. Santosh Sangwan, was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19.07.2001. It is contended that the petitioner‟s admission form in the respondent School, dated 28.03.2000, recorded her biological father's name as Sh. Dharampal Sangwan, who had later remarried Smt. Kamlesh Sangwan, and the petitioner herein had resided with them. Thus, the School had updated its records to reflect the name of the petitioner‟s stepmother, Smt. Kamlesh Sangwan, as her mother. It is contended that these details were consistently reflected in both the registration form and the list of candidates for the Class 10th examination submitted by Respondent No. 2, and were duly recorded in the CBSE-issued certificate. It is stated that the petitioner subsequently passed her Class 12th examination as a private candidate in 2011, where her biological mother‟s name, Santosh Kumari, was recorded.

20. It is argued that while the petitioner contends that she began living with her biological mother in 2009, she did not take any steps to rectify the names in her Class 10th certificate until 2021. It is further submitted that though she issued a public declaration to change her name in 2014, she did not seek any correction in her Class 10th certificate at that time. It is contended by CBSE that the petitioner cannot seek to change her name or the names of her parents in the Class 10th certificate as there was no error in the original registration, and the names were correctly recorded in accordance with school records. It is finally submitted that the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed, as the petitioner has no legal right to demand amendments to her Class 10th certificate contrary to CBSE's by-laws. Submissions on Behalf of the School

21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent NO. 2/School has placed on record the documents pertaining to the petitioner and her school records, to contend that the School has written several letters to the CBSE and submitted all the relevant documents in past, in order to ensure that grievance of the petitioner is resolved, however, the CBSE has failed to take any action in this regard.

22. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both the sides, and has perused material available on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

23. In a nutshell, the petitioner herein seeks correction of her name and her biological mother‟s name in her 10th-grade certificate and other educational records. Born on 17.09.1991 to Sh. Dharampal Sangwan and Smt. Santosh Kumari, the petitioner was separated from her mother at a young age due to her parents‟ marital discord. Her father, after remarrying, had entered the name of his second wife, Smt. Kamlesh, as the mother of the petitioner in her school and consequent CBSE records. Later, despite her best efforts to substitute the name of her biological mother as against her step mother in the official records, especially her 10th-grade certificate, by way of filing formal requests and publishing gazette notifications as per law, no action has been taken by the authorities to change her name and the name of her mother in the official record.

24. She now seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to have her correct name and parentage reflected in her official documents, citing the negative impact these discrepancies have had on her ability in securing employment

25. In this Court’s opinion, the record of the case reveals that there is no dispute that the petitioner‟s biological mother is Smt. Santosh Kumari and her biological father is Sh. Dharampal Sangwan. This case arises from the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the marital discord between the parents of the petitioner, which led to their divorce when the petitioner was just one year old. Following the separation, the petitioner‟s custody was taken by her father, leaving her separated from her biological mother during her childhood. The decree of divorce is undisputed, as is the fact that the petitioner now resides with her biological mother, Smt. Santosh Kumari. It is also undisputed that she had been staying with her biological father and stepmother till she was studying in 10th standard. Balancing Legal Rigor with Compassionate Justice

26. This Court, while adjudicating the present petition, notes that every case cannot be decided solely on the rigid construction of law, without considering the underlying facts and the reasons that bring the petitioner before this Court. While the letter of the law provides a necessary framework for justice, the true essence of fairness often lies in examining the specific circumstances of each case. Courts exist not only to apply laws but to ensure that justice is done in a way that is responsive to the particular needs of the litigant who is not a file but a human being.

27. Members of the community often approach the Courts seeking relief based on unique and sometimes deeply personal struggles, and these facts cannot be overlooked in the name of rigid legal formalism.

28. It is the duty of the Court to balance the application of law with compassion, understanding, and a thorough examination of the facts, so that justice serves not only the law but also the people for whom the law was created.

29. In case, no relief is granted, due to a strict interpretation of the laws, rules and regulations, the petitioners who are before the Court, facing peculiar circumstances due to unforeseen troubles of life, will be left without any remedy. The facts of the present case present such a situation. Through Judicial Discretion: Overcoming the Barriers of Rigid Law

30. This Court is also of the firm opinion that, windows of Hopes are often opened which seem, left shut due to rigidity of law and administrative insensitivities and the Courts have to live up to the constitutional morality to fulfill the real intent of law and reach and serve those for whom the constitution has fundamental rights.

31. This case presents an unusual situation where the stepmother‟s name was recorded while filling the registration details for Class 10th CBSE examination, primarily because the petitioner, at the said point of time, was living with her biological father and stepmother under an arrangement made between her biological parents after their divorce. The petitioner, however, now seeks to have her biological mother‟s name correctly reflected in official records, especially the Class 10th certificate. The stand of respondent no. 1/CBSE is that the existing bye-laws do not permit amendments to a candidate‟s parental names, once the form has been filled and an incorrect name is entered therein. However, a rigid application of the regulations in such a unique and personal circumstance would result in unfair denial of justice to her which may seem trivial to some, however, may mean the world to a daughter seeking to be recognized by the name of her biological mother. To deny this right to her as a daughter would lead to denying her right to be known by the name of the mother who brought her to the world. The emotional trauma or distress even an adult may face may be equivalent to a trauma experienced as if one is still a child, as in the present case, the adult daughter feels as if she is still a child who wants to be known by the name of her mother. This Court has to grant her this relief since it is her right to be known by the name of her biological mother and the law in case it denies her this relief will be doing gross injustice to her, not as a member of the community but also as an adult daughter, who still has that child in her who loves her mother and recognizes her as one who has given her the ability to stand on her feet and fight for herself.

32. The Courts have a duty to come to the aid of individuals who approach them, especially when exercising their discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional provision empowers the High Courts to issue writs, ensuring that justice is done in cases where legal or administrative actions have failed to address a genuine grievance. The true exercise of this discretion involves looking beyond rigid legal frameworks to address unique and personal circumstances, as well as ensuring that injustices that might otherwise persist are addressed. It is the responsibility of the courts to uphold not just the letter of the law, but its spirit, offering relief where formalistic interpretations would result in unfairness. Courts must ensure that individuals, like the petitioner, are not left without remedy in their pursuit of justice, particularly when procedural limitations or administrative errors hinder the correction of genuine mistakes.

33. This Court is of the firm opinion that when the doors of rigid interpretations close, it is the courts’ discretion that opens windows of hope for those left remedy-less. Justice and Identity: The Necessity of Accurate Representation in Personal Records

34. To reiterate, in this case, the petitioner, an adult daughter, has expressed her desire to have her biological mother‟s name reflected in her official records. This is not merely a legal formality but a matter of personal choice, identity and dignity. Given the petitioner‟s circumstances, where she was allegedly ill-treated by her biological father and stepmother, and she ultimately was able to reunite with and be raised by her biological mother, it would be unjust to deny her this right.

35. In a democratic society that upholds the legal rights of every citizen, the petitioner must be allowed to have her biological mother‟s name recorded in her official records. The petitioner has been cared for and nurtured by her biological mother after she was allegedly forced to leave her biological father‟s home due to illtreatment by him and her stepmother. Her biological mother Smt. Santosh thereafter, single-handedly supported her, and today the petitioner is a qualified Engineer. Denying this relief would burden her with an unnecessary psychological stress, forcing her to live with the name of her stepmother, who does not reflect the truth of her familial and emotional life.

36. Therefore, this Court, recognizing the petitioner‟s legitimate right to have her identity being connected with that of her biological mother by way of her voluntary choice, and understanding the unique circumstances of her roller coaster life, cannot overlook the emotional and psychological weight attached to this issue. This Court cannot leave the adult daughter living with a psychological burden of seeing the name of her stepmother, where her own biological mother has been raising her after the second marriage of her biological father. The petitioner‟s request is both reasonable and justifiable, and the law must ensure that her records reflect her rightful lineage, providing her with the peace and dignity she deserves.

37. This Court has perused the letter dated 26.07.2021, written by the biological mother of the petitioner and the petitioner jointly, for issuance of CBSE Class 10th candidate list, and details of parents‟ name, as per school record, pertaining to the petitioner, which has been reproduced hereunder:

38. It is also noted that even the Respondent no. 2 School has filed on record, the admission form of the petitioner herein, and a typed copy of the same shows that when the petitioner was admitted in the School, the name of the mother in the admission form is written as Smt. Santosh Sangwan. The same has been reproduced as under:

39. It is also observed that even in the original birth record, with the registration no. 3110, issued on 23.12.1999, issued by the Health Department of Haryana Government, Municipal Council Karnal (local area), Tehsil District, Haryana, the name of the biological mother has been shown as Smt. Santosh. The same has been reproduced as under:

40. This Court further notes that the Admission and withdrawal register of the Respondent no. 2 School also reveals that the name of the mother of the petitioner has been recorded as Smt. Santosh Sangwan, i.e. the biological mother of the petitioner, which has been reproduced as under:

41. Vide letter dated 18.04.2024, the Principal of the School had informed CBSE that they were unable to trace the letter, tendered by the biological father of the petitioner herein, for the change of the name of the mother.

42. It is noted that Respondent no. 3 i.e. Sh. Dharampal Sangwan was impleaded as a party vide order dated 18.07.2023 by this Court. Amended memo of parties was filed on 25.07.2023. It is also noted by this Court, that the father of the petitioner didn‟t appear even once despite service.

43. Having observed so, this Court‟s attention has also been invited to paragraph no. 8 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1/ CBSE, which reads as under:

44. In this regard, it is observed that it is truly absurd that CBSE is opposing the present petition purely for the sake of formality and raising absurd grounds. The primary duty of the Board is to serve the people and facilitate justice, not to create unnecessary barriers. In this case, there is no valid reason for such opposition, especially when the documents presented clearly support the petitioner‟s claims. It is strange that CBSE suggests that the writ petition and prayers therein amounts to changing the mother. To quote again, the counter affidavit specifically states that the prayer regarding the alleged correction in the name of the petitioner is not a simple prayer for correction but rather a prayer for the change of the mother of the petitioner, and further the CBSE has submitted in its counter affidavit that the stepmother of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Kamlesh and the biological mother of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Santosh Kumari are two different persons and this Court in its writ jurisdiction will not change the mother of the petitioner. On a plain reading of such submissions in the counter affidavit, the same need to be rejected outrightly since it is beyond understanding as to how seeking the name change of the mother will mean changing the mother itself, when the record is before the Court as to who the biological and stepmother of the petitioner is. Fundamental Right To Have One’s Identity Linked With One’s Biological Mother

45. This Court is of the firm opinion that as a Court of law, this Court is people’s Court to serve the community. Therefore, when a Court is endowed with the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it will be its duty to juxtapose law with the unique personal struggles of a litigant in the event the circumstances of the case so require for effective and real justice.

46. It is to be noted that the petitioner, as a child, was admitted in the School by the biological parents of the petitioner. Their names were correctly mentioned in the admission record. Unfortunately, the parents got divorced later. The child was in the custody of biological father, who chose to remarry and got married to Smt. Kamlesh Sangwan. He had changed the name of the mother of the child to Smt. Kamlesh Sangwan. This Court questions as to where was the fault of this child, who was in secondary school, when her father unilaterally changed the name of her biological mother and substituted it with that of her stepmother. At such a tender age, the petitioner had no control over the decisions made by her parents, especially during a tumultuous period of familial discord. The child was navigating her own challenges, while the adults in her life made choices that would have profound implications on her identity and sense of belonging. The unilateral alteration of her mother's name in official records not only disregarded her relationship with her biological mother but also imposed an emotional burden on her, as she was left to grapple with the ramifications of decisions made without her consent. It is fundamentally unjust to hold her accountable for the outcomes of the conflicts of adults in her life. The petitioner deserves recognition of her true familial ties, free from the complications introduced by her father's actions, which were beyond her influence or understanding at that point of time.

47. As a Court of Writ Jurisdiction, this Court has to go beyond and see the societal pressure or the peculiar unfortunate circumstances, this girl who was not an adult, would have found herself in when her parents were divorced. After her parents got divorced, she was living with her stepmother and biological father, and would not have had any option or any say, when her father changed her mother‟s name, and substituted it with the name of her stepmother.

48. Unfortunately, it was not the child at that stage, who could have done anything about it, as she was at the mercy of her stepmother and her biological father, who did not appear in the Court, despite summons to support his daughter, for a valid cause, where she only wanted that the name be corrected, which was correctly mentioned originally at the time of admission in the school.

CONCLUSION

49. To conclude, this Court holds that it is the quest of Shweta, to link her identity with her biological mother, who has given birth to her, and who has been raising her single handedly since she joined her back after completing her secondary education and with whom she feels connected to. It can be understood as to how strongly she feels that her identity should be joined and be reflected even on the pieces of paper, which are so valuable in the Indian context, for her career and future courses, that her name will be reflected, known and identified with the name of the woman, who brought her to this world.

50. In light of the above observations, this Court finds that the petitioner‟s request for the correction of her biological mother‟s name in the Class 10th certificate issued by CBSE, is both reasonable and just. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner‟s request to change her name from „Shweta Sangwan‟ to „Shweta,‟ i.e. to remove her surname, is also justified. The petitioner has expressed her desire not to be identified by her father‟s surname, possibly, and understandably, due to the marital discord between her parents and the fact that her father has since remarried. The petitioner is now residing solely with her biological mother and is estranged from both her father and stepmother. Given these personal circumstances, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should have the autonomy to define her identity as she deems appropriate..

51. However, as far as the petitioner‟s prayer to change her father‟s name from Sh. Dharampal Sangwan to Sh. Dharampal is concerned, this Court finds no valid basis for directing such a change. The records clearly indicate that the correct name of the biological father of the petitioner is Sh. Dharampal Sangwan. This Court is of the considered view that the father has the right to be known by his complete and proper name, and the petitioner does not have the locus standi to alter this aspect of his identity. Therefore, this prayer is liable to be rejected.

52. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The respondent NO. 1/CBSE is directed to correct the petitioner‟s name from ‘Shweta Sangwan’ to ‘Shweta’, and her mother‟s name as ‘Smt. Santosh Kumari’ (who is her biological mother), in the Class 10th certificate, within a period of one month from the date of this order.

53. The journey of Shweta‟s writ petition thus ends on a positive note, permitting her to have her identity of being known as daughter of her biological mother, Smt. Santosh Kumari.

54. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

55. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2024