Jharkhand High Court
Sajid Hussain vs The Union Of India And Ors on 17 March, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 AJR 791
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5828 of 2016
Sajid Hussain ............ Petitioner
Vrs.
The Union of India & others ..... Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha (Amicus Curiae)
: Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey
For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI & Mr. Nitu Sinha, CGC
For the CBSE :M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Shresth Gautam
For the AICTE : Mr. PAS Pati
For the State : Mr. V.K.Prasad,SC(L&C), Amit Kr. Verma, JC
08/17.03.2017Learned amicus curiae, Mr. Indrajit Sinha has placed different statutes enacted by the Parliament as well as by the State Legislator on the question of the recognition of identity of an individual / Indian National. The Aadhaar(Targeted Delivery of Financial Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act,2016 provides for creation of an unique identification code of an individual commonly known as Aadhaar number. The Unique Identification Authority of India is a statutory Authority created under the Act. However, it functions under the Parent Department of Information and Technology, Government of India. Under the Income Tax Act and the rules framed there under, the PAN (Permanent Account Number) Card are accepted as identity of an individual assessee. The parent ministry being the Ministry of Finance. The Passport Act, 1967 and the rules made there under provides the basis for declaration of identity of an Indian Citizen. These functions are performed under the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
2. Learned amicus curiae also refers to the Office Memorandum of Ministry of Home dated 12.3.1987, which lays down the procedure in the matters relating to addition / deletion / change of name / surname. The Office Memorandum however does not refer to any statute. It appears to be an administrative instruction or circular. He has also placed the provisions of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969, which is a parliamentary legislation. This in itself requires -2- mandatory registration of birth and death of an individual. The State legislation on the subject, for example is Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, which provides for compulsory registration of birth and death. Learned amicus curiae also refers to the legislation framed by the State of Goa namely "The Goa Change of Name and Surname Act,1990" and the Rules of 1991 framed there under. Reference is also made to the Citizenship Act, 1955 framed by the Parliament where under the Citizenship (Registration of Citizen and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003 have also been framed. Census has also a seminal role in the matter of recognition of identity of an individual / Indian National.
3. There might be many State legislations in relation to the recognition of the identity of the Individual / Indian National or for change of identity / name for that matter. Learned amicus curiae submits that the aforesaid factual and legal position in law shows that there is no uniform codified law in India which governs the procedure for change of name. A person may change his name for various reasons. In a given case there may be no machinery to verify the genuineness of such reason. Though generally speaking no mens rea or bad motive can be attributed to a person for changing his / her name but there can be a situation where a person seeks to change his / her name in order to escape from legal liabilities, either civil or criminal or both. Such change in identity / name can lead to serious consequence. Different Authorities follow different procedures permitting a person to change his name in the documents relating to person's identification. This also leads to an anomalous situation where a person has to undertake various steps for changing name in various documents. It also present a situation where a bona fide person seeking change in his name may have to face the rigmarole of complicated procedure. Learned amicus curiae -3- therefore submits that the issue in question has a very large and serious repercussion. The State and its Instrumentalities cannot escape from creating a legal framework in which the identity / name of an individual is susceptible to change under a set of common denominators. This country faces large scale illegal immigration from its porous borders. It also leads to fake identity giving rise to acts of terrorism, extremism, which the country is increasingly facing day by day. The welfare measures and schemes of the Central and State Government are often liable to be usurped by elements with fake identities. The situation is grave enough to call for a concerted effort by all the stake holders. In the absence of uniform codified law and procedure, the Court can fill the vacuum by laying down guidelines till the Legislature steps in. The Law Commission of India and the Legislature can also be requested to examine the matter.
4. The background facts and circumstances which has thrown up the larger issue involved herein are reflected in the order dated 22.11.2016 which are extracted hereunder:-
"Petitioner herein has sought correction in his name i.e. 'Saddam Hussain' to 'Sajid Hussain' in his certificates and mark sheets of Class X (Matriculation); Class XII(Plus
2); certificates of the University like the Bachelor of Engineering degree and all such educational qualifications, reason being adduced is that petitioner faces problem in getting employment in International Shipping Companies on account of his present name.
However, petitioner has been successful in effecting change of his name in Passport issued by the Passport Authorities, Aadhar Card, Driving License and Pan Card and has also been able to get his name changed to 'Sajid Hussain' in the official Gazette of the Government of Jharkhand, Land Reforms and Revenue Department.
It is significant question to be enquired into as to whether without effecting change in the name of the petitioner in the educational certificates, more specifically in the Matriculation certificate, whether he could have effected change of his name in the Passport and other documents being relied upon by him. For a effective answer to the question posed, it would be necessary to obtain the stand of the Respondent, Union of India under whose authority the Passport Office functions as well as the Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand and the Central Board of Secondary Education, which issues Matriculation and Plus 2 certificates.
Let the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, -4- Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi be impleaded as Respondent no. 7 for which necessary correction in the array of parties shall be carried out learned counsel for the petitioner in red ink during the course of the day.
Let an early response in the matter be filed on behalf of the aforesaid Respondents within a period of 3 weeks from today.
Let the name of Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Land and Ceiling be reflected in the cause list, henceforth.
List this case on 15.12.2016 under the heading for admission in the first 10 cases as unfixed matter". The larger issue raised herein is i.e., (i) whether the present legal framework is adequate to provide a uniform code for the purposes of change in identity/ name of an individual/ Indian citizen;
(ii) If not, what are the legal and other consequences which follow;
(iii) whether they commend creation of a legal framework with a set of common denominators in the larger interest of the individual / Indian Citizen as well as State?
5. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I represents the Union of India while Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned S.C.(L&C) represents the State of Jharkhand; Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel represents the Central Board of Secondary Education; the Technical Board AICTE is represented through learned counsel Mr. PAS Pati. Learned ASGI seeks time to obtain clear and specific instructions on the larger issue involved from the concerned Ministries of Government of India i.e. Ministry of Information Technology, Ministry of Home, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of H.R.D. Learned A.S.G.I would also seek instructions from the Election Commission of India on this issue.
6. Learned State Counsel is also required to have complete instructions from the Department of Home, Department of Information and Public Relation, Department of Finance and such other Departments which have a role on this issue i.e. change in identity/ name of an individual.
7. Since the issues involve large ramifications, this Court -5- considers it proper to direct the Secretaries of the concerned Ministries / Department, referred to herein above, to furnish specific instructions within time to the learned counsels representing them i.e. learned A.S.G.I and State Counsel so that they may be able to assist the Court properly.
8. As prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, a larger time of 6 weeks is granted to seek instruction. It is expected that concerned Ministries of the Government of India and Departments of the State Government would furnish their instructions well within time to enable learned counsels to assist the Court on the subject on the next date. They are at liberty to file their affidavit with copy to the learned amicus curiae and learned counsel for the petitioner also.
9. Learned counsel representing C.B.S.E submits that application of the petitioner for change of name in the Matriculation certificate cannot be allowed in view of the amended bye laws notified on 25.6.2015. He however submits that a reasoned order would be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from today.
10. List this case accordingly on 5th May, 2017. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the Respondents.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty