Bangalore District Court
Kavitha N vs The State Of Karnaaka, By Its Chief ... on 4 September, 2025
KABC010091242023
Govt.of Karnataka
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCCH.11)
Dated this the 04th day of September 2025
PRESENT: (Ganapati. Gurusidda. Badami)
B.A.LL.B (Spl)
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
O.S.NO.6254/2024
PLAINTIFF Smt. Kavitha N
D/o. Narasimha,
Aged about 33 years,
D.No.174/2, 1st Main Road,
O.S.NO.6254/2024
2
Lingaiah Street, Seshadripuram,
Bengaluru - 560020.
[By Pleader Sri.Madh H.P.)
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS 1. The State of Karnataka
By its Chief Secretary,
Vidhan Soudha,
Bengaluru - 560001.
2. The Commissioner
The Karnataka Secondary
Education Examination Board,
6th Cross Road, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru -560003.
3. The Commissioner
Department of Pre-University Education,
18th Cross Road, Sampige Road,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru -560003.
4. The Vice Chancellor,
Bengaluru University Mysore Road,
Jnana Bharathi, Bengaluru - 560056.
5. The Secretary
National Council for Cooperative Training,
No.3, Hauz Khas Road,
Siri Institutional Area,
Block - A, Block - B, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi - 110016.
6. The Principal
MES Kishore Kendra Pre-University
College, 15th Cross, Malleshwaram,
O.S.NO.6254/2024
3
Bengaluru - 56000.
7. The Principal
MES Institution of Management,
Vidya Vihara, NO.25/1, 17th Main,
2nd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560010.
8. The Principal
Hasanath Education Society,
No.43, Dickenson Road,
Hanumanthappa Layout,
Shivanachetti Gardens, Halasuru,
Bengaluru - 560042.
9. The Chairman
Regional Institute of Cooperative
Management, No.67, Padmanabhanagar,
B.S.K. 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560070.
10. The Chief Electoral Officer
Nirvachana Nilaya, maharani's College
Circle, Sheshadri Road,
Bengaluru - 560001.
11. The Regional Officer
Passport Authority of India,
Khanija Bhavan,
No.49, 3rd Floor, South Wing,
Race Course Road,
Bengaluru - 5600040.
(D1 & 2 By I ADGP, D10 - By Pleader
S.R.D., D5, 8, 9 & 11- Exparte)
O.S.NO.6254/2024
4
Date of Institution of the suit : 31.08.2024
Nature of the Suit : Declaration and
Mandatory Injunction
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 09.07.2025
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 04.09.2025
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 00 11 27
(Ganapati. Gurusidda. Badami)
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration of her name and mandatory injunction to change her name in the concerned records The pleaded facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under:
O.S.NO.6254/2024 5
2. The plaintiff is the daughter of Smt. Lakshmi.N and Sri. Narasimha and she is born on 05.10.1990 She was originally christened and called as "Kavitha.N" and in her school records and college records, her name was continued as "Kavitha.N". She has studied her 1st standard in Cambridge English School and she has studied 2nd Standard to 7th Standard and 8th Standard to 10th Standard in St. Anthony High School, Mathikere, Bangalore. The Headmistress of said school has issued certificate to establish that, plaintiff studied in the said school. The plaintiff studied PUC at M.E.S Kishore Kendra Pre- University College and she studied her degree in B.Com course in M.E.S Institute of Management. She joined M.Com course in Hasanath Education Society, Bangalore and completed the same. She has joined and completed her higher Diploma in Co-operative Management in Regional Institute of Co-operative Management, Bangalore which is affiliated to National Council for Co-operative Training, O.S.NO.6254/2024 6 New Delhi. She got included her name in the voters list maintained by BBMP and Election Commission of India has issued voters identity card in her name. She has obtained passport in her name from passport authority. She has got registered her name with the Unique Identification Authority of India with regard to Aadhar card. She was already aged about 33 years in the year 2023 and she was not married even at the age of 33 years. Therefore, she went to depressive stage. When she contacted an astrologer expressing her grievance, astrologer advised her that, the name "Kavitha.N"christened to the plaintiff, do not tally with her birth star and it is not possible for her to get married in her lifetime and advised her to change her original name "Kavitha.N" to "Srividya N." as the said name would match the horoscope and birth star of the plaintiff. The plaintiff being a God fearing and spiritual person adhered to the advice given by her astrologer and approached an advocate to get her name changed from Kavitha.N to Srividya.N. Her advocate advised her to get an O.S.NO.6254/2024 7 affidavit sworn before Notary thereafter to give publication in newspaper having wide circulation in the city. She has sworn an affidavit before Notary declaring her name of change from "Kavitha.N" to Srividya.N and also published in Kannada Prabha daily newspaper dated 22.09.2023 with regard to the change of her name. After getting her notarized affidavit and publication in Kannada Prabha Daily newspaper, she submitted representations to the defendants to change her name from "Kavitha.N" to "Srividya.N" in her records and sent notices by registered post. The defendant No.6 has wrote a letter dated 13.12.2023 stating that, unless and until decree is obtained from competent court with regard to the change of name, they are not in a position to incorporate her name as desired by her. After change of her name from "Kavitha.N" to Srividya.N," her marriage was fixed and she was busy in the marriage activities and could not meet her advocate to give instruction to file the suit for change of her name and in the first week of June 2024, she met her advocate and handed O.S.NO.6254/2024 8 over the papers to prepare and file the suit. Hence she is constrained to file this suit against the defendants.
3. Even though suit summons was served upon defendant No. 5, 8, 9 and 11, they have not appeared and contested the suit and they are placed exparte. Though suit summons was served upon defendant No.3, he has not appeared and contested the suit. Though suit summons served upon defendant No.5, he has not appeared and contested the suit and placed exparte. Though defendant No. 4, 6 and 7 have received suit summons but they have not appeared and contested the suit.
4. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have filed written statement and denied the contents of the plaint. It is Contended that the suit is filed with misconceived facts and liable to be dismissed. As per circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the name/caste of the plaintiff. The O.S.NO.6254/2024 9 plaintiff has not impleaded BEO, DDPI and BBMP as necessary parties to the suit and suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. The plaintiff has not served notice under Section 80 of CPC and she has not filed any declaratory affidavit and not published in any newspaper. The suit has been filed after considerable time of 33 years and it is barred by law of limitation and on this ground also, suit is not maintainable. The defendants have recorded the information provided by the parents of plaintiff in the school records and there is no fault or mistake on the part of the defendants and there is no cause of action. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Defendant No. 10 has filed written statement and contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is hit by Section 30 of the Representation of People Act, which bars the jurisdiction of civil Court interalia, to question the legality of any action taken by or under the authority of an Electoral Registration Officer, The suit is not maintainable against O.S.NO.6254/2024 10 defendant No. 10. The preparation of electoral rolls for an assembly or parliamentary constituency are under the direction, supervision and control of the Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan Ashok Road, New Delhi. The process of preparation of electoral of constituency is governed by the provisions of Representation of People Act and Registration of Electorol Rules, 1960. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi and the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act designates as nominate the Electoral Division Registration Officer for every Assembly constituency in the State. The Electoral Registration Officer is the only competent authority to enroll the name of eligible citizens of the country into the electoral roll of the Jurisdictional Assembly constituency of a state and to make any changes in the particulars of the electoral rolls, Electoral Registration Officer follows the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act and Registration of Electoral Rolls while carrying out his functions. The identity cards will be issued to a person O.S.NO.6254/2024 11 whose name is entered in the electoral roll for a constituency. The registration of Electors Rules 1960 are made by the Central Government exercising power under Section 28 of the Representation of People Act. Rule 13(3) of Registration of Electors Rules 1960 mandates that any objection to a particular or particulars in any entry in the electoral rolls shall be filed in Form No. 8 appended to the said rolls and Form 8 shall be filled only by the person to whom that entry relates. Rule 26 mandates the procedure to be followed thereafter. The Electoral Registration Officer after following the procedure prescribed in the Registration of Electors Rules 1960. The competent authority to effect changes in electoral roll and to issue the Voter's Identity card is the Jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer, who is not made as a party to this suit and suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party. The plaintiff has not mentioned the Electoral Registration Officer of which constituency has issued him. The voters identity card and the particulars of voters changed in the O.S.NO.6254/2024 12 electoral roll by the competent authority i.e. Jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer after following the due procedure prescribed in the Representation of People Act and Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, then only the voters identity card with the changed particulars will be issued to a voter unless changes are made in the electoral rolls to the concerned assembly constituency. There is no provision in law to make changes only in the voters' identity card. The plaintiff has not approached the Jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer by filing Form No. 8 seeking changes in the entries in the electoral roll. There are appeal provisions against any order passed by Electoral Registration Officer under the Representation of Peoples Act. The defendant No.10 is not competent authority to effect changes in the particulars of a voter in the electoral roll of a constituency. Any direction to effect changes in the particulars of the electoral roll cannot be issued against defendant No.10. This suit is hit by Section 30 of the Representation of People Act which bars the O.S.NO.6254/2024 13 jurisdiction of Civil Court to question the legality of any action taken under authority. There is no cause of action to maintain the suit against defendant No. 10, and plaintiff cannot bypass the statutory provisions. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, this Court has framed the following Issues:
1) Whether plaintiff proves that, her name is Srividya N and her name has been wrongly mentioned as Kavitha N.in her school records?
2. Whether defendant no. 2 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder of the necessary parties?
3. Whether defendant no. 2 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation?
4. Whether defendant no. 2 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on the grounds stated in the Para No. 10 of the written statement?
5. Whether defendant No.10 proves that the suit is barred under Section 30 of the Representation of People Act?
O.S.NO.6254/2024 14
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint?
7. What order or decree?
7. Plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and got marked ExP-1 to 54 and closed the evidence. The defendants have not chosen to lead any evidence on their behalf. Hence evidence of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 10 is closed.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and learned ADGP for defendant No.1 and 2 and and Learned Counsel for Defendant No.10 and perused the evidence on record.
9. My findings on the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : In the Negative Issue No.5: Partly in the Affirmative O.S.NO.6254/2024 15 Issue No.6: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.7 : As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Issues No. 1: PW-1 has stated in her address that she is the daughter of Lakshmi N and born on 05.10.1999 day and on her birth she was originally christened and called as "Kavitha N" and in her school records, college records her name is continued as "Kavitha N". She has further stated that she has Studied 1st Standard and 2nd Standard to 7th Standard and 8th to 10th Standard in St. Anthony High School, Mathikere, Bangalore and studied PUC II Year in M.E.S. Kishore Kendra Pre-University College and degree in B.Com course in M.E.S. Institute of Management and also completed M.Com course from Hasanath Education Society, Bangalore and to that effect, she has produced her marks card and certificate issued by St. Anthony High School, SSLC marks card, PUC marks card Study O.S.NO.6254/2024 16 Certificate, B.Com marks cards and M.Com marks cards. She has stated that, she has passed the Higher diploma examination of Co-operative Management in Regional Institute of Co-operative Management, Bangalore which is affiliated to National Council for Co-operative Training, New Delhi. She has stated that her name in the voter list maintained by the BBMP and Election Commission of India, which has issued voter ID in her name and she has obtained passport from passport authority and Aadhar card from Unique Identification Authority of India in her name. According to her evidence, she was aged about 33 years in the year 2013 and she was not married even at that age and she contacted an astrologer expressing her grievance, who advised her to change her name and her name do not match with her birth star and it was not possible for her to get married in her future life and he advised to change her name from Kavitha.N to Srividya.N. which matches horoscope. She has further deposed that, on the advice of the astrologer, she has changed her name from Kavitha.N to Srividya.N and O.S.NO.6254/2024 17 sworn an affidavit before notary and given paper publication in the Kannada Prabha newspaper daily dated 22.09.2023. She has stated that, she has given representation to the defendants to change her name in the records and she issued notice to the defendants and defendant No. 6 wrote a letter intimating her that, unless and until a decree is obtained from competent court with regard to change of name, they are not in a position to incorporate her change of name as desired by her.
11. She has further stated that, after the change of her name, her marriage was fixed and she was busy in marriage activities and finally she got married in the month of May 2024. She was busy in her marriage work and she contacted her advocate in the first week of June 2024 and handed over the papers.
12. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she has filed the suit for change of her name and her religion is Hindu and O.S.NO.6254/2024 18 she has produced her birth certificate before this Court. she has produced certificate issued by school in which her caste is mentioned as Adi Karnataka. She has stated that she has not produced her transfer certificate before this court. She has stated that she wanted to change her name as Srividya.N and in her wedding card, her name is mentioned as Kavitha.N. Before arrangement of her marriage, her advocate advised to change her name as Srividya.N and in her wedding card, her new name Srividya.N is mentioned in bracket before her previous name Kavitha.N. She has admitted that, as per the information given by her parents, school and college authorities have mentioned her name as Kavitha. N in school and college records and there is no fault on the part of the school and college authorities.
13. She has produced her birth certificate as per ExP-1 and as per the said document, she is born on 05.10.1990. She has produced the certificate issued by Antony High School and as per said document, she has studied from 2nd Standard to 7th Standard in the year 1998-99 to 2006-07 and her date of O.S.NO.6254/2024 19 birth is 05.10.1990 and she is belonged Adi Karnataka caste. She has produced her SSLC, Marks card and as per said document, her name is mentioned as Kavitha. She has produced her PUC Marks card as per ExP-4 in which her name is mentioned as Kavitha N. She has also produced her B.Com Marks card as per ExP-6 to 11. She has also produced M.Com marks cards as per ExP- 12 to 17, in which her name is mentioned as Kavitha.N and she has also produced marks card of Higher Diploma in Co-operative Management course in which her name is mentioned as Kavitha.N and she has also produced certificate issued by Indian Council for Co-operative Training New Delhi. In the shared document also, her name is mentioned as Kavitha N. She has also produced affidavit declaring her name from Kavitha N. to Srividya N. She has also produced her passport, Aadhar card and election identity card in which her name is mentioned as Kavitha N. She has also produced Kannada Prabha newspaper about publication of change of her name in the newspaper. She has also given requisition to O.S.NO.6254/2024 20 the Headmaster, Cambridge High School, as per ExP-26, a letter to Principal M.E.S. Kishore Chandra Pre-University College as per ExP-27, a letter to Headmaster of St. Anthony High School as per ExP-28, a letter to Principal No. 43 Dickenson as per ExP-29, a Letter to Principal, M.E.S. Institute of Management, as per ExP-30, a Letter to Chairman, Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, as per Ex.P.31. The Chief Executive Officer, BBMP Head Office, as per Ex.P33, a Letter to Regional Officer as per ExP-34. She has also produced postal receipts as per ExP-35 to 43 , Postal acknowledgements as per ExP-44 to 47 and unserved postal cover as per ExP-48 and track consignment records as per ExP-49 to 51. One letter written by M.E.S. Kishore Kendra Pre-University College who advised to bring the decree for change of name.
13. On appreciating the evidence on record, the plaintiff has produced her birth certificate. Certificate issued by St. Antony High School, SSLC Marks card, PUC II Year marks O.S.NO.6254/2024 21 card, Study Certificate issued by MES Institute of Management, B.Com Marks cards. M.Com Degree Marks cards and Higher Diploma in Co-operative Management Marks Card in which her name is mentioned as Kavitha N. She has sworn an affidavit by changing her name from Kavitha.N to Srividya. N. She has also given paper publication about change of her name. So I hold that, plaintiff has sworn an affidavit and given paper publication and got changed her name. So I answered issue no.1 in the affirmative.
14. Issues No.2: The defendant No. 2 has taken contention that the suit of the plaintiff is a bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. In this case, the plaintiff has impleaded the State of Karnataka, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, Department of Pre- University Education Board, Vice-Chancellor, Bangalore University, National Council for Co-operative Training, Principal MES Kishore Kendra, Pre-University College, O.S.NO.6254/2024 22 Principal, MES Institute of Management, Principal Hasanath Education Society, the Chairman, Regional Institute of Cooperative Management, Chief Electoral Officer and Regional Officer of Passport Authority of India and she has sought correction in her School records, college records, Aadhar card, passport and election identity card for which she has impleaded the defendant No. 1 to 11 in this suit and they are only the necessary parties to the suit and BEO and DDPI are not necessary parties and in their absence also, the suit can be decided effectively and completely as Karnataka Secondary Education Board, Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore University are parties to the suit along with the State Government. The suit can be decided effectively and completely in the presence of defendant Nos. 1 to 11. Hence, the contention taken by the defendants is not acceptable. So, I answered issue No.2 in the negative.
15. Issues No.3: The defendant No. 2 has taken contention that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by barred by O.S.NO.6254/2024 23 limitation. On perusal of the cross examination of PW-1, nothing has been elicited that, when the plaintiff came to know about the mistakes in her educational records. In the absence of the date of knowledge, the contention taken by defendant No.2 is not acceptable. So, I answered Issue No.3 in the negative.
16. Issue No.4 : The defendant No. 2 has taken contention in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has not served notice to the defendants under Section 80 of CPC and she has not filed declaratory affidavit and not published in any newspaper. But on perusal of the documents produced by the plaintiff, on 31.11.2023, she has given requisition to Cambridge High School Headmaster, Principal M.S. Kishore Kendra PU College, Headmaster, St. Antony High School, Principal No. 43 Dickenson Road, Bangalore. The Chairman, Regional Head of Cooperative Management, Chief Electoral Officer, Chief Executive Officer, BBMP, Regional Officer of O.S.NO.6254/2024 24 Passport Authority of India and the said representations are served upon the defendants and they have not taken any action on her representation which has given raise of cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the contention taken by the defendant No.2 is not acceptable. So, I answered Issue No. 4 in the negative.
17. Issue No.5 : It is the contention of Election Commission that, the suit of the plaintiff is hit by Section 30 of the Representation of People Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is the contention of defendant No. 5 that preparation of electoral rolls for an assembly or parliamentary constituency are under the supervision and direction of Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashok Road, New Delhi, a constitutional autonomous authority. The Election Commission of India New Delhi under the provisions of Representation of People Act shall designate Electoral Registration Officer for every Assembly constituency in the State. The Electoral O.S.NO.6254/2024 25 Registration Officer is the only competent authority to enroll the name of eligible citizens of the country into the electoral roll of jurisdictional assembly constituency of a state and to make any changes in the particulars of electoral rolls. The Electoral Registration Officer follows the provisions of Registration of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules, No civil court shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll for a constituency;
or
(b) to question the legality of any action taken by or under the authority of an electoral registration officer, or of any decision given by any authority appointed under this Act for the revision of any such roll.
Section 24 of Representation of People Act deals with appeals. The said provision reads as follows:
O.S.NO.6254/2024 26 An appeal shall lie within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed--
(a) to the chief electoral officer, from any order of the electoral registration officer under section 22 or section 23 The Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960, in which Section 2 (d) defined "registration officer" which means the electoral registration officer of a constituency and includes an assistant electoral registration officer thereof.
In Rule 5 of the said Rules, the procedure for preparation of Roll has been prescribed. In Rule 13 of The Registration of Electors Rule 1960, form for claims and objections has been prescribed which is as follows:
(1) Every claim shall be--
(a) in Form 6; [and]
(b) signed by the person desiring his name to be included in the roll;
O.S.NO.6254/2024 27 (2) Every objection to the inclusion of a name in the roll shall be--
(a) in Form 7; [and]
(b) preferred only by a person whose name is already included in that roll;
(3) Every objection to a particular or particulars in an entry in the roll shall be--
(a) in Form 8; and
(b) preferred only by the person to whom that entry relates.
[(4) Every application for transposition of an entry from one part to another part of the roll shall be in Form 8A.] O.S.NO.6254/2024 28 Rule 14 of The Registration of Electors Rules 1960 prescribes the manner of lodging claims and objections.
Every claim or objection or application for correction of particulars or transposition of entries shall-
(a) either be presented to the registration officer or to such other officer as may be designated by him in this behalf or
(b) sent by (post to the registration officer or)
(c) be submitted electronically to the registration officer.
Rule 15 prescribes the procedure of designated officers and Rule 16 says about procedure for registration of officer and Rule 17 says about rejection of certain claims and objections. Rule 20 prescribes the procedure for enquiry into the claims and objections which reads as follows:
(1) The registration officer shall hold summary inquiry into every claim or objection in respect of which notice has been given under Rule 19 and shall record his decision thereon O.S.NO.6254/2024 29 (2) At the hearing the claimant, or as the case may be, the objector and the person objected to and any other person who, in the opinion of the registration officer, is likely to be of assistance to him, shall be entitled to appear and be heard.
(3) The registration officer may in his discretion-
(a) require any claimant, objector or person objected to, to appear in person before him.
(b) require that the evidence tendered by any person shall be given an oath and administer an oath for the purpose.
Rule 21 prescribes the procedure for inclusion of names inadvertently omitted. Rule 21-A prescribes the procedure for deletion of names. Rule 23 prescribes the appeals from orders deciding claims and objections which reads as follows:
O.S.NO.6254/2024 30 (1) An appeal shall lie from any decision of the registration officer under rule 20, 3[rule 21 or rule 21A] to such officer of Government as the Election Commission may designate in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the appellate officer):
Provided that an appeal shall not lie where the person desiring to appeal has not availed himself of his right to be heard by, or to make representations to, the registration officer on the matter which is the subject of appeal.
(2) Every appeal under sub-rule (1) shall be--
(a) in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant, and O.S.NO.6254/2024 31
(b) presented to the appellate officer within a period of fifteen days from the date of announcement of the decision or sent to that officer by registered post so as to reach him within that period. (3) The presentation of an appeal under this rule shall not have the effect of staying or postponing any action to be taken by the registration officer under rule 22.
(4) Every decision of the appellate officer shall be final, but in so far as it reverses or modifies a decision of the registration officer, shall take effect only from the date of the decision in appeal.
(5) The registration officer shall cause such amendments to be made in the roll as may be necessary to give effect to the O.S.NO.6254/2024 32 decisions of the appellate officer under this rule.
The important provision under The Registration of Electors Rules 1960 is Rule 26 which reads as follows:
(1) Every application under section 22 or sub-section (1) of section 23 shall be made in duplicate in such one of the Forms 3[6,7, 8, 8A and 8B as may be appropriate 4***].
[Provided that the statements in Forms 2, 2A and 3, from persons having service qualifications, received after the final publication of the electoral roll shall be deemed to be the applications under sections 22 and 23 4***]. [(1A) Every such application as is referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be presented to the registration officer in such manner as the Election Commission may direct.] (3) The registration officer shall, immediately on receipt of such application, direct that one copy thereof be posted in some conspicuous place in his office together with a notice O.S.NO.6254/2024 33 inviting objections to such application within a period of seven days from the date of such posting.
[(4) The registration officer shall, as soon as may be after the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (3), consider the application and objections thereto, if any, received by him and shall, if satisfied, direct the inclusion, deletion, correction or transposition of entries in the roll, as may be necessary:
Provided that when an application is rejected by the registration officer, he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejections.] It is clear from section 30 of Representation of Peoples Act 1950, there is bar of jurisdiction of civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll for a constituency or to question legality of any action taken by the authority of an Electoral Registration Officer or any decision given by that authority. Section 22 of said Act prescribes the procedure for correction of entries in electoral rolls. After following the procedures prescribed in Rule 5 and 6 of The O.S.NO.6254/2024 34 Registration of Electoral Rules 1960, it will be entered in the electoral roll and election identity card will be issued to the elector for franchise of his votes in the elections held to the constituency or other general elections or local Gram Panchayat or local body elections. The power for corrections of entries and inclusion of names in electoral rolls and issuance of election identity card vested with jurisdictional Registration officer and appeals are also vested with said Rules. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to direct the electoral authorities for change of name of plaintiff in the electoral rolls and election identity card as held in the decision reported in Amrit Lal Baveja V/S Election Commission of India and others AIR 2010(NOC) 82(P&H). Even in the decision reported in Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali V/s B.D.Jatti and others 1970(3) SCC 147 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. When statute has not provided jurisdiction to the Court to exercise power, this Court cannot exercise and direct the defendant No.10 and 11 to make correction in their records. This Court can only direct school authorities for change of O.S.NO.6254/2024 35 name of plaintiff in the school authorities. So I answer issue No.5 in partly AFFIRMATIVE.
18. Issue No.6 : In my discussion above, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of only respect of school records and she is not entitled to get the relief in respect of passport, Aadhar card and election identity card because the election identity card cannot be changed except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Electors Rules, 1960. In the Aadhar card, the procedure has been prescribed under Aadhar Act. Plaintiff may approach the Electoral Officer and concerned Aadhaar authorities to change the name in the said records. So, I answered Issue No. 6 in party affirmative.
13. Issue No.7 : For the reason discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. It is thereby declared that the plaintiff's name is Srividya. N. O.S.NO.6254/2024 36 It is directed to the defendant Nos. 1 to 9 to change the name of the plaintiff as Srividya.N in her educational records.
The prayer in respect of Aadhar card, Election Identity card and Passport is rejected.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and computerized by her, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 04th day of September, 2025).
(Ganapati. Gurusidda.Badami) VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 Kavitha N. Dated 09.07.2025
O.S.NO.6254/2024
37
(b) Defendants' side : N I L
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Birth certificate
Ex.P.2 Certificate issued by Anthony High
School
Ex.P.3 SSLC marks card
Ex.P.4 PUC marks card
Ex.P.5 Study certificate
Ex.P.6 to B.Com 1st to 6th semesters marks
Ex.P.11 cards
Ex.P.12 to M.Com 1st sem to 4th sem marks
Ex.P.17 cards
Ex.P.18 Marks card of Higher Diploma in
cooperative Management
Ex.P.19 Certificate issued in Higher Diploma
in cooperative Management
Ex.P.20 Affidavit
Ex.P.21 Original PAN card
Ex.P.22 Original Election identity card
Ex.P.23 Original Aadhaar card
Ex.P.24 Original passport
Ex.P.25 Kannada Prabha newspaper
Ex.P.26 Office copy of applications dated 30-
and Ex.P.27 11-2023
Ex.P.28 Office copy of applications dated 27-
and Ex.P.29 02-2024
Ex.P.30 Office copy of application dated 30-
11-2023
Ex.P.31 Office copy of application dated 27-
02-2024
Ex.P.32 Office copy of 3 applications dated
O.S.NO.6254/2024
38
to Ex.P.34 22-03-2024
Ex.P.35 9 postal receipts
to Ex.P.43
Ex.P.44 4 Postal acknowledgments.
to Ex.P.47
Ex.P.48 Unserved postal cover
Ex.P.49 3 Track consignments record
to Ex.P.51
Ex.P.52 Reply given by MES PU college
Ex.P.53 Reply given by PU Board
Ex.P.54 Reply given by Ministry of
information Technology
(b) Defendants' side : N I L
(Ganapati. Gurusidda.Badami)
VI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru City.