The Karnataka High Court has held that a person has the civil right to seek recognition under a name of their choice, ruling that a name can be changed through a civil court even when the decision is influenced by astrology or numerology.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar made the observation while allowing a plea concerning a minor girl whose family wanted to change her name from Lakshmi N. to Veena N.
The family had chosen the new name believing that it would bring greater prosperity. The minor, represented by her father, approached the civil court seeking a declaration recognising her by the new name.
The trial court had rejected the request, reasoning that there was no documentary evidence establishing that the girl’s name was ‘Veena N.’ It had also noted that the family had not first approached the school where she was enrolled to seek a change in her name.
The High Court found this approach misplaced.
It pointed out that the case was not about correcting an existing error in the girl’s name. Rather, the family was seeking to adopt an entirely new name.
The Court observed that there was consequently no question of producing earlier documents showing that the girl had already been known as ‘Veena N.’
The High Court also noted that a Karnataka government circular contemplated a civil court decree for effecting a change of name. The family had additionally published notices in newspapers regarding the proposed change.
Name recognition is a civil right
While allowing the plea, the High Court emphasised that a person’s name is central to their recognition in society and that the right to be recognised by one’s chosen name has a civil character.
It held that a person can approach a civil court for correction or change of name because the issue concerns the adjudication of a civil right.
In the present case, the Court found no objection from anyone to the proposed change and no material to suggest that allowing the new name would cause prejudice or harm to any other person.
The Court accordingly declared that the minor could be recognised as Veena N. instead of Lakshmi N.
The ruling effectively draws a distinction between correcting a wrongly recorded name and voluntarily adopting a different name. In the latter situation, the absence of earlier documents carrying the new name cannot, by itself, be used as a reason to reject the request.
The Court therefore granted the declaration sought by the minor through her father and directed that her new name be recognised accordingly.