MS. ARCHANA JOLLY V. THE COMMISSIONER,

RFA/50/2021

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ms. Archana Jolly against the dismissal of her suit by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which sought to change her name from Archana Jolly to Aradhana Jolly in all official records due to astrological and horoscopic reasons. The trial court had dismissed the suit on grounds of it being barred by limitation and the name change being a whim. However, the High Court of Karnataka overturned this decision, citing the plaintiff's right to change her name under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which encompasses the freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21, which pertains to the right to liberty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692404 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Huccheshwara S.Mali vs. The Head Master, Good Shepherd Higher Primary School and Others, Kabir Jaiswal vs. Union of India and Others, Rashmi Srivastava vs. State of U.P.
• Laws Referred To: CPC, 1908
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S S NAGARALE; K RAVISHANKAR BHAT; G S ARUNA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMARTHA S
• Keywords: Change of name; Astrological reasons; Horoscopic reasons; Personal identity; Right to freedom of speech and expression
• Section: 96

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2021 (DEC) BETWEEN: MS. ARCHANA JOLLY D/O NAVIN JOLLY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 808/7, NO 808/8, KAMALA NIVAS, KAIKONDANAHALLI, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BEHIND OCTAVE HOTEL, BANGALORE 560035 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMARTHA S A/W SRI.PRAVEEN.N, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002 2. PRINCIPAL SOPHIA HIGH SCHOOL, NO 70, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS, P 35-36, SECTOR VI, PUSHP VIHAR , SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017 4. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 OPP CET, BENGALURU-560012 5. PRINCIPAL R V COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 14TH BLOCK, VAJARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR CHIKAGOWDANAPALYA, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560062 6. THE REGISTRAR VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANA SANGAMA, MACHHE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA-590018 7. THE SECRETARY COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE , INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, CORE 6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003 8. ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER MAHADEVAPURA ASSEMPBLY CONSTITUENCY, RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD ROAD, HOODI, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048 9. THE COMMISSIONER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 10. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, NO 1, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 11. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (UIDAI), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BANGLA SAHIB RD, BEHIND KALI MANDIR, GOLE MARKET, NEW DELHI-110001 - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 12. CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO 8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.S.NAGARALE & SRI.AMBARISH.B.N, ADVOCATES FOR R6; SRI.K.RAVISHANKAR BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.RAMA BHAT, SR. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR R11 & 12; SRI.G.S.ARUNA, HCGP FOR R4 & R9; R1, 2, 3, 5, 7 & 10 ARE SERVED; V/O DTD: 28/06/2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R8 & 9 IS D/W). THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF THE CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2020 PASSED BY HON'BLE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY (CCH-NO.25) IN O.S.NO.3074/2019. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 96 of CPC seeking for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3074/2019 dated 03.07.2020 for having dismissed the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.11 and 12 and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.4 and 9. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 12 for change of her name to Aradhana Jolly from Archana Jolly in all her records, right from the birth certificate, passport to her academic records, degree certificates, etc., The plaintiff has contended that she was born on 20.03.1990 and that she is having passport, Aadhar card and she is employed in a private company and is an Income Tax assessee. Very recently, she has been advised by her parents, elders as well as well-wishers to change her name to Aradhana Jolly for astrological and horoscopic reasons. Hence, filed the present suit. 5. The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 12 have filed separate written statement. Based upon the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues as under: - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 \"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for declaration of change of her name from Ms. Archana Jolly to Ms. Aradhana Jolly in all her records? 2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the releifs as claimed for? 4) What order or decree?\" 6. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 14 documents. The defendant Nos.1 to 12 have not lead any evidence. The trial Court answered issue No.1 in the negative and issue No.2 in the affirmative and in favour of the defendants as suit is barred by limitation and issue No.3 in the negative and accordingly, suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff completed her education at the age of 28- 29 and that during the year 2019, when she was not able to get any matrimonial alliance due to astrological and horoscopic reasons, her family members, elders and well- - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 wishers advised her to change her name. Hence, plaintiff filed the present suit for changing her name as Aradhana Jolly instead of Archana Jolly. 8. The defendants though objected the suit by filing written statement but have not contested the matter. 9. The trial Court without giving any proper reasons dismissed the suit only on the ground that the name cannot be changed according to whims and fancies. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is not claiming any benefit from the Government or claiming any seat in the Government Department. Only for the purpose of marriage alliance, she wants to change her name due to horoscopic reasons. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court also dismissed the suit as barred by limitation but the learned counsel submits that in the year 2019, she came to know that the name is not suitable for her and therefore, she wants to change her name. Learned counsel submits that if decree - 7 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 is passed changing her name, it will not cause any hardship to the defendants. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 11. In support of his case, he has relied upon judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Huccheshwara S.Mali vs. The Head Master, Good Shepherd Higher Primary School and Others passed in RSA.No.1044/1995 and judgments rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kabir Jaiswal vs. Union of India and Others passed in Writ C.No.19287/2020 and in the case of Rashmi Srivastava vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ C.No.16056/2021. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants has not seriously objected the suit except that the suit was barred by limitation. 13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel on both sides, the following points would arise for consideration: - 8 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for change of her name from Archana Jolly to Aradhana Jolly in all her records? 2) Whether suit is barred by limitation? 3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed? 14. On perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the birth name as per the birth certificate of the petitioner is Archana Jolly and in the school and college records, her name is shown as Archana Jolly. She has completed her education in the year 2014. Aadhar card also obtained as per Ex.P-10 is in the name of Archana Jolly. She also obtained passport in the same name as per Ex.P-14. The pan card and also Driving Licence were all issued in the name of Archana Jolly including Voter ID. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that she was not able to get any alliance for the marriage and as per the advise of the Astrologer and horoscopic reasons, she wants to change her name. - 9 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 15. The defendants have filed written statement rejecting the plaintiff's claim but have not stated for what reason they have rejected her claim. On the other hand, plaintiff is not claiming any recruitment or seat from the Government department or any benefit from the Government by changing her name as Aradhana Jolly. Learned counsel submits that plaintiff came to know when the marriage proposal was made during the year 2019, she was unable to get any marriage alliance due to horoscopic and astrological reasons. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the name of the plaintiff was given by the father in the hospital when the child was born. Therefore, it is reflected in birth certificate. 16. Relying upon the judgment rendered by the co- ordinate Bench in the case of Huccheshwara S.Mali., learned counsel submits that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered similar issue and has allowed the appeal. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court at para 11 has held as under: - 10 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 \"……..framing the issue stating \"whether the pl proved that his name Huccheshwara did not tally with the horoscope and that the proposed name Shashank tallied with the horoscope.\" The trial Court completely lost sight of the fact that the plaintiff faced serious embarrassment in his class, when his fellow students addressed him as huccha (a mad fellow), taking advantage of the name given to him by his parents as Huccheshwara.\" 17. Similarly the Allahabad High Court has taken a similar view in Kabir Jaiswal (supra) and at para 8 has held as under: \"8. Name is something very personal to an individual. Name is an expression of one's individuality, one's identity and one's uniqueness. Name is the manner in which an individual expresses himself to the world at large. It is the foundation on which he moves around in a civil society. In a democracy, free expression of one's name in the manner he prefers is a facet of individual right. In our country, to have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is certainly a part of right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) as well as a part of the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. - 11 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 State or its instrumentalities cannot stand in the way of use of any name preferred by an individual or for any change of name into one of his choice except to the extent prescribed under Article 19(2) or by a law which is just, fair and reasonable. Subject to the limited grounds of control and regulation of fraudulent or criminal activities or other valid causes, a bonafide claim for change of name in the records maintained by the authorities ought to be allowed without hesitation.\" 18. On a very careful reading of the above culled out paragraph, the Allahabad High Court has held that, name is something very personal to an individual and it is one's individuality, one's identity and one's uniqueness. If the name of the plaintiff is changed, absolutely there is no hurdle or any irreparable loss caused to the other side, except allowing plaintiff to ply abroad and paying the taxes. 19. Considering the same, I am of the view that plaintiff is having right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and she is also - 12 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 entitled to change her name for the purpose of her future family life. Therefore, I am of the view that trial Court committed error in dismissing the suit and not allowing the plaintiff to change her name. 20. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is dismissed by the trial Court as barred by limitation is concerned, this Court is of the view that the suit is not barred by limitation as during the year 2018-19, when there was marriage proposal for the plaintiff, she came to know that her name is not suitable for her in view of astrological and horoscopic reasons and immediately, on advise of her parents and well-wishers, she filed a suit for declaration for changing her name from Archana Jolly to Aradhana Jolly. Therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. 21. In view of the above findings, I am of the view that the judgment and decree of the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 13 - NC: 2023:KHC:29934 RFA No. 50 of 2021 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment and decree passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3074/2019 dated 03.07.2020 is set aside. Consequently, the suit is decreed; (iii) The plaintiff is permitted to change her name from Archana Jolly to Aradhana Jolly; (iv) The defendants are directed to make necessary changes in all the records. Sd/- JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 "