Every child has a right to bear a name and via her or his name preserve her or his identity and individuality

The Delhi High Court in the matter of Deepak and Anr. vs Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) [W.P. (C) 7146 & 7147/2016] decided on 20.03.2020, allowed the plea for surname change in the CBSE certificates of two orphaned children.

Facts:
The petitioners in the matter were two orphan children between the age group of 19 and 22. They were housed and taken care of in Udayan Care Home under the directions issued by Child Welfare Committee. The petitioners were subsequently admitted to a school affiliated to the CBSE. However, against the ‘surname’ column in their admission forms, the name “Udayan” was written. The petitioners having matured with age approached CBSE to delete the word “Udayan” from their respective names (as it was mentioned in their grade-X and grade-XII results respectively). However, the CBSE did not concur to the same. It was argued by the CBSE that the request for change in name can only be made within a period of one year commencing from the date of declaration of the result.
Aggrieved by the same, a petition was filed before the Delhi High Court.

Ratio:
The Court held that the issue was unfamiliar terrain as the CBSE’s Examination bye-laws as it did not factor in a situation where a change in name is sought by an abandoned or an orphaned child.
The Court considered Articles 7 and 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which states that every child has a right to bear a name and via her or his name preserve her or his identity and individuality. The expression “parents” in Article 7(1) of the CRC, in the context of the circumstances in which the petitioners were placed, could only mean “parens patriae”. The expression “parens patriae”, in the given situation, would fit the CBSE (an instrumentality of the State) and, in this case, where the CBSE has failed to act, the CBSE should have ideally accorded the necessary relief to the petitioners even though the particular aspect pertaining to abandoned children was not envisaged in the Examination bye-laws.
In conclusion, the Court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, and observed that it is duty-bound to correct the wrong done to the petitioners. Therefore, it was held that the petitioners are entitled to reclaim their individuality and identity by insisting on inclusion in their grade-X and grade-XII certificates, the name by which they wish to be known.