# JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION) & ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 4 S.C.R. 1100
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-06-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3905 of 2011
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, B. R. Gavai, Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jigya-yadav-minor-through-guardian-father-hari-singh-v-c-b-s-e-central-board-of-35058
- **Pages:** 98

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions: Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) - Examination Byelaws of the Board,
if having the force of law - Held: The CBSE Examination Byelaws
are couched in the form of a code - They provide for all essential
aspects relating to formal education of a student including
admission, examination, migration, transfer, curriculum, fee for
various services, issuance of verified certificates, modifications in
certificates etc. - The Byelaws, therefore, bind the parties and are
duly enforceable in a court of law, even by way of writ remedies -
The Byelaws of the Board have the force of law and must be regarded
as such for all legal purposes - It would serve no meaningful
purpose to hold these authoritative set of rules originating from an
instrumentality of the State as mere contractual terms despite there
being overwhelming public interest in their just application -
Arguendo, the Examination Byelaws are not "law" under Art.13, it
would not affect the power of the Court to scrutinize them in reference
to Part-III of the Constitution of India as CBSE is "State" within the
meaning of Art.12 and all its actions are consequently subject to
Part-III - Constitution of India - Part III - Arts. 12 and 13 - Central
Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Examination Byelaws of
2007.
Education/Educational Institutions: Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) - Correction/change in certificates
issued by the Board - Scope of permissible corrections/ changes -
The CBSE Examination Byelaws restrict, both qualitatively and
quantitatively, the corrections/changes that can be carried out in
the certificates issued by the Board - Test of rationality - Whether
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1100
1100
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1101
Examination Byelaws of CBSE / Board impose reasonable
restrictions - Held: The identity of an individual is one of the most
closely guarded areas of the constitutional scheme in India - Name
can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity - Going
by the very nature of rights under Article 19, the right to get changed
name recorded in the official (public) records cannot be an absolute
right and as a matter of public policy and larger public interest
calls for certain reasonable restrictions to observe consistency and
obviate confusion and deceptive attempt - On facts, the Byelaws
permit change of name only if permission from the Court has been
obtained prior to the publication of result - The provision is
problematic on certain counts - There can be numerous
circumstances wherein change of name could be a legitimate
requirement and keeping the ultimate goal of preserving the standard
of education in mind, the Board must provide for a reasonable
opportunity to effect such changes - Balance of convenience would
tilt in favour of students for, they stand to lose more due to
inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board whose sole worry
is increasing administrative burden - CBSE maintains its official
records in respect of candidates on the basis of foundational
documents being the school records - Therefore, CBSE is obliged
to carry out all necessary corrections to ensure that CBSE certificate
is consistent with the relevant information furnished in the school
records as it existed at the relevant time and future changes thereto
including after the publication of results by the CBSE - However,
when it comes to recording any information in the original certificate
issued by the CBSE which is not consistent with the school records,
it is essential that the CBSE must insist for supporting public
document which has presumptive value and in the given case
declaration by a Court of law to incorporate such a change - In
that regard, the CBSE can insist for additional conditions to reassure
itself and safeguard its interest against any claim by a third party/
body because of changes incorporated by it pursuant to application
made by the candidate - Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE) Examination B

## Text

_Characters 0–39,910 of 227,429. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39910 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR)
(THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER HARI SINGH)
v.
C.B.S.E. (CENTRAL BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3905 of 2011)
JUNE 03, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, B. R. GAVAI AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) - Examination Byelaws of the Board,
if having the force of law - Held: The CBSE Examination Byelaws
are couched in the form of a code - They provide for all essential
aspects relating to formal education of a student including
admission, examination, migration, transfer, curriculum, fee for
various services, issuance of verified certificates, modifications in
certificates etc. - The Byelaws, therefore, bind the parties and are
duly enforceable in a court of law, even by way of writ remedies -
The Byelaws of the Board have the force of law and must be regarded
as such for all legal purposes - It would serve no meaningful
purpose to hold these authoritative set of rules originating from an
instrumentality of the State as mere contractual terms despite there
being overwhelming public interest in their just application -
Arguendo, the Examination Byelaws are not "law" under Art.13, it
would not affect the power of the Court to scrutinize them in reference
to Part-III of the Constitution of India as CBSE is "State" within the
meaning of Art.12 and all its actions are consequently subject to
Part-III - Constitution of India - Part III - Arts. 12 and 13 - Central
Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Examination Byelaws of
2007.
Education/Educational Institutions: Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) - Correction/change in certificates
issued by the Board - Scope of permissible corrections/ changes -
The CBSE Examination Byelaws restrict, both qualitatively and
quantitatively, the corrections/changes that can be carried out in
the certificates issued by the Board - Test of rationality - Whether
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1100
1100
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1101
Examination Byelaws of CBSE / Board impose reasonable
restrictions - Held: The identity of an individual is one of the most
closely guarded areas of the constitutional scheme in India - Name
can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity - Going
by the very nature of rights under Article 19, the right to get changed
name recorded in the official (public) records cannot be an absolute
right and as a matter of public policy and larger public interest
calls for certain reasonable restrictions to observe consistency and
obviate confusion and deceptive attempt - On facts, the Byelaws
permit change of name only if permission from the Court has been
obtained prior to the publication of result - The provision is
problematic on certain counts - There can be numerous
circumstances wherein change of name could be a legitimate
requirement and keeping the ultimate goal of preserving the standard
of education in mind, the Board must provide for a reasonable
opportunity to effect such changes - Balance of convenience would
tilt in favour of students for, they stand to lose more due to
inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board whose sole worry
is increasing administrative burden - CBSE maintains its official
records in respect of candidates on the basis of foundational
documents being the school records - Therefore, CBSE is obliged
to carry out all necessary corrections to ensure that CBSE certificate
is consistent with the relevant information furnished in the school
records as it existed at the relevant time and future changes thereto
including after the publication of results by the CBSE - However,
when it comes to recording any information in the original certificate
issued by the CBSE which is not consistent with the school records,
it is essential that the CBSE must insist for supporting public
document which has presumptive value and in the given case
declaration by a Court of law to incorporate such a change - In
that regard, the CBSE can insist for additional conditions to reassure
itself and safeguard its interest against any claim by a third party/
body because of changes incorporated by it pursuant to application
made by the candidate - Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE) Examination Byelaws of 2007 - Constitution of India -
Art.19.
Education/Educational Institutions: Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) - Correction/change in certificates
issued by the Board - Whether the CBSE / Board is obliged to carry
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER
HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
out corrections/changes in the certificates issued by it owing to
correction/updation of public records/ documents which have
statutory presumption of genuineness - Held: There is no reason
for the CBSE Board to not take notice of the public documents relied
upon by the candidate and to record change on that basis in the
certificate issued by it, for being consistent with the relied upon
public documents - It matters not if the information furnished in the
public documents is not entirely consistent with the school records
of the incumbent - CBSE while accepting those documents as
foundational documents for effecting changes consistent therewith
may insist for additional conditions and at the same time while
retaining the original entry make note in the form of caption/
annotation in the fresh certificate to be issued by it while calling
upon the incumbent to surrender the original certificate issued by it
to avoid any misuse thereof at a later point of time - It would be
permissible for the CBSE to insist for a sworn affidavit to be given
by the incumbent making necessary declaration and also to
indemnify the CBSE - The fresh certificate to be issued by the CBSE
may also contain disclaimer of the Board clearly mentioning that
change has been effected at the behest of the incumbent in light of
the public documents relied upon by him - In addition, the incumbent
can be called upon to notify about the change in the Official Gazette
and by giving public notice as precondition for recording the change
by way of abundant precaution - When a student applies to a Court
of law for prior permission and/or declaration and produces public
document(s), the Court would enter upon an inquiry wherein the
legal presumption would operate in favour of the public document(s)
and burden would shift on the party opposing the change to rebut
the presumption or oppose the claim on any other ground - The
question of genuineness of the document including its contents would
be adjudicated in the same inquiry and the Court of law would
permit the desired change only upon verifying the official records
and upon being satisfied of its genuineness - At the same time, the
question of justiciability of the requested changes would be
considered and only upon being satisfied with the need demonstrated
by the student, the Court would grant its permission - The said
permission can then be placed before the Board along with copy of
publication in the official gazette and requisite (prescribed) fee (if
any) - The Board would then have no locus to make further enquiry
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1103
nor would be required to enter upon any further verification exercise
- While considering requests for changes in certificates, CBSE
cannot act as a court and it cannot effectively consider any request
over and above those requests that merely require bringing the
certificates in conformity with the school records or public
documents, as the case may be - Central Board of Secondary
Education (CBSE) Examination Byelaws of 2007.
Education/Educational Institutions: Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) - Examination Byelaws of the Board
- Corrections/changes in certificates issued by the Board - Period
of limitation for correction of the certificates - Whether the
Examination Byelaws in force on the date of examination conducted
by CBSE or the date of consideration of the application for
recording correction/change would be relevant - And, whether the
effect of correction or change, as the case may be, will have
retrospective effect from the date of issue of the original certificate
- Held: The Byelaws existing on the date of declaration/publication
of result and issue of certificate would be relevant for the purpose
of effecting changes in the certificates - If the limitation of
applicability of Byelaws was to be reckoned from the date of
application for correction/change and not the date of result of the
examination conducted by CBSE, that would be leaving things to a
state of uncertainty - Once changes are permitted in the documents
of CBSE, it does not ipso facto mean that the changes are given a
retrospective effect - The changes are indeed prospective and to
signify that a remedial measure is provided in the Byelaws, as existing
presently - They provide for the requirement of adding a caption/
annotation with the date of such change along with the changed
particulars so as to indicate within the certificate that the changes
have been made on a date subsequent to the date of publishing the
certificates - The requirement of caption/annotation is indeed a
sufficient safeguard to prevent the usage of subsequently altered
documents as unchanged original records - Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) Examination Byelaws of 2007.
Education/Educational Institutions: Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) - Correction/change in certificates
issued by the Board - Whether writ of mandamus issued for effecting
corrections in CBSE certificates can be in the teeth of explicit
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER
HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
provisions in the examination byelaws, without examining validity
of the byelaws - Held: The High Courts, being constitutional Courts,
are duly vested with the power to review any law in light of Part-III
- There cannot be mechanical directions by way of mandamus to a
public authority without going into the veracity of the claims and
without sufficiently explaining why the case demands extraordinary
treatment - The Courts need to be extra cautious and alive to the
immediate factual position before permitting changes - No two
requests for change of name or change in date of birth can be
viewed with the same judicial eye - Sometimes, change of name
could be a necessity, sometimes it could be a pure exercise of freewill
without any need - As long as Byelaws or the applicable rules permit
so, there is no occasion for any court to deny such relief - But
when Byelaws do not permit for the same, the Court must be
circumspect before issuing directions, that too without commenting
upon the validity of the Byelaws and without demonstrating the rights
which are at stake - constitutional or legal - Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) Examination Byelaws of 2007 -
Constitution of India - Part III.
Education/Educational Institutions: Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE) - Correction/change in certificates
issued by the Board - Nature of correction or change, as the case
may be, permissible to be carried by the CBSE at the instance of the
student including past student - Held: Broadly, two situations would
arise - The first is where the incumbent wants "correction" in the
certificate issued by the CBSE to be made consistent with the
particulars mentioned in the school records - There is no reason
for the CBSE to turn down such request or attach any precondition
except reasonable period of limitation and keeping in mind the
period for which the CBSE has to maintain its record under the
extant regulations - CBSE cannot impose precondition of applying
for correction consistent with the school records only before
publication of results - Such a condition would be unreasonable
and excessive - However, if the request for recording change is
based on changed school records post the publication of results
and issue of certificate by the CBSE, the candidate would be entitled
to apply for recording such a change within the reasonable limitation
period prescribed by the CBSE - As regards request for "change"
of particulars in the certificate issued by the CBSE, it presupposes
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1105
that the particulars intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate
are not consistent with the school records - Such a request could be
made in two different situations - The first is on the basis of public
documents like Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card/Election Card, etc.
and to incorporate change in the CBSE certificate consistent
therewith - The second possibility is when the request for change is
due to the acquired name by choice at a later point of time - That
change need not be backed by public documents pertaining to the
candidate - Reverting to the first category, there is a legal
presumption in relation to the public documents as envisaged in the
1872 Act - Such public documents, therefore, cannot be ignored by
the CBSE - Taking note of those documents, the CBSE may entertain
the request for recording change in the certificate issued by it -
This, however, need not be unconditional, but subject to certain
reasonable conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant as may be
prescribed by the CBSE - The fresh certificate may contain disclaimer
and caption/annotation against the original entry (except in respect
of change of name effected in exercise of right to be forgotten)
indicating the date on which change has been recorded and the
basis thereof - However, in the latter situation where the change is
to be effected on the basis of new acquired name without any
supporting school record or public document, that request may be
entertained upon insisting for prior permission/declaration by a
Court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette
including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate
original certificate, as the case may be) issued by CBSE and upon
payment of prescribed fees - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.76 r/w ss.79,
80 and 81.
Disposing of the cases with directions to the CBSE, the
Court
HELD:
Whether the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
Examination Byelaws of 2007 have the force of law.
1.1. For the nature of activities undertaken by the CBSE/
Board including the powers and functions of the Board, it can be
safely assumed that the Board is a State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as a corollary thereof,
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER
HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
its actions would be amenable to Part-III of the Constitution of
India. The fact that the Board can be treated as a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution does not mean that the
byelaws framed by it would necessarily become law within the
meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India. Only a "law"
under Article 13 can be reckoned as a restriction in respect of
rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. [Para
101][1155-C-E]
1.2. The underlying purpose of defining "law" under Article
13 is to encompass a practical administrative reality that there
can be laws other than ordinary statutory laws. It, therefore, takes
within its sweep those matters (declaration in the form of Byelaws
in this case) as having the "force of law" albeit not enacted by the
legislature as such. For, it defines "law" to include ordinances,
orders, byelaws, rule, regulation or notification issued/made by
the State. The precise meanings of these terms cannot be confined
in the rigidity of language and the same is neither desirable nor
required in the present case. [Paras 103, 104][1156-E-G]
1.3 Law made by State refers to a body of rules which shapes
the rights and liabilities of persons in a universal sense as opposed
to a private transaction between parties. Such law has the ability
to bind people by providing for all prominent aspects of their
conduct as the subjects of law. Therefore, any rule/notification/
order/byelaw issued/made by the State or its instrumentalities
would have the force of law and bind all entities subjected to it
and operates as a code of conduct to regulate their functioning.
Yet another crucial characteristic would be enforceability in a court
of law. [Para 105][1157-A-B]
1.4 CBSE, despite being packaged as a registered society,
is performing an essential public function for the government
since its establishment in 1929. The principles associated with a
public function can be illustratively culled out as follows: a.
Extension of collective benefit to public by a public authority; b.
Participation in social or economic affairs including health,
education, social services etc.; c. Private bodies or charitable
institutions performing public functions could also be regulated
in the same manner as a public authority. In the school education
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
structure as we have it, there are state government boards limited
to respective states. There are central boards having its area of
operation throughout India, namely, Council for the Indian School
Certificate Examinations (ICSE), a private board; International
Baccalaureate (IB), formerly known as International
Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) a non-profit foundation/
organization having headquarter in Geneva, Switzerland; and
CBSE. [Para 106][1157-D; 1158-E-H]
Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC
657 - relied on.
1.5 CBSE is the only central body for conducting
examinations in the country created by a resolution of the Central
Government. All the bodies constituted at various levels are
working in the direction of just educational governance. Article
41 of the Constitution, couched as a directive, is the source behind
the basic functioning of the CBSE Board as it secures nothing
but right to education. It is participating in educational affairs
which form an intrinsic part of social affairs. The CBSE Board is
a public authority functioning in public interest for the performance
of a public function. [Para 107][1159-A-B]
1.6 The constitution of the CBSE/Board reaffirms the public
character of the Board as the ultimate control over the functioning
of the Board is exercised by the Ministry of Education (now
Ministry of Education & Social Welfare). Reverting to the CBSE
Examination Byelaws, the same are couched in the form of a code.
They provide for all essential aspects relating to formal education
of a student including admission, examination, migration, transfer,
curriculum, fee for various services, issuance of verified
certificates, modifications in certificates etc. This Byelaws,
therefore, bind the parties and are duly enforceable in a court of
law, even by way of writ remedies. To put it differently, the
Byelaws of the Board have the force of law and must be regarded
as such for all legal purposes. It would serve no meaningful
purpose to hold these authoritative set of rules originating from
an instrumentality of the State as mere contractual terms despite
there being overwhelming public interest in their just application.
[Paras 108, 109, 110][1159-C; 1159-F-G; 1160-A]
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER
HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
1.7 The argument that Byelaws of the Board are contractual
elements as CBSE is a registered society unbacked by a statute
cannot be accepted for at least four reasons - first, CBSE is not a
private corporate body. It is a juristic person and a "State" within
the meaning of Article 12, which in itself warrants its amenability
to the courts including constitutional writ courts; second, the
functions performed by the CBSE Board are public functions and
not private functions; third, the test of "force of law" takes within
its sweep the nature of rule, its authoritative impact on the
subjects, nature of function performed by the rule making body,
the origin of the body, the binding value of the rules, existence of
any competing set of rules and fourth, absence of statute does
not automatically render the rules to be contractual terms. [Para
111][1160-B-C]
1.8 As in the ultimate analysis, the Byelaws operate as law,
the scrutiny of this Court cannot be undermined by giving them
an artificial colour. For a student enrolled with the CBSE, there
is no other body of rules but the subject Byelaws for dealing with
all significant aspects of her education. By now it is an established
tenet that even body corporates, co-operative societies,
registered societies etc. can be declared as instrumentalities of
the State, for the only reason that the outer form of organization
must not be allowed to defeat the ultimate constitutional goal of
protection of fundamental rights as and when they suffer at the
hands of the State, directly or indirectly. The Court ought to
intervene with circumspection even when the public body derives
its authority from a government resolution. [Para 112][1160-DF]
1.9 One says so because there is an evolving body of
jurisprudence enunciating that the principle of presumption of
constitutionality attached with statutes ought not to be extended
to subordinate legislations with the same vigour. For, the
legislature enjoys the sacred backing of people's will and naturally,
every act of legislature is presumed to be constitutional. In other
words, the Courts generally do not look upon duly enacted laws
with suspicion at the first glance as they enjoy legal presumption
of its validity. Nevertheless, circumspect intervention on the part
of the Court is to advance constitutional protection for guarantees
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
under Part-III of the Constitution. Arguendo, the Examination
Byelaws are not "law" under Article 13, it would not affect the
power of the Court to scrutinize them in reference to Part-III of
the Constitution of India as CBSE is "State" within the meaning
of Article 12 and all its actions are consequently subject to PartIII. [Paras 113, 114][1160-F-H; 1161-A]
Whether examination byelaws of CBSE / Board impose
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article
19 of the Constitution including fail the test of rationality for
excessively restricting the scope of permissible corrections/
changes?
2.1 The core existence of an individual is not exemplified
by her outer characteristics but by her inner self-identification
and also about the significance of the acquired identity in the
form of name. The identity of an individual is one of the most
closely guarded areas of the constitutional scheme in India. The
sanctity of identity has been recognized by this Court in a plethora
of cases. The core existence of an individual is not exemplified
by her outer characteristics but by her inner self-identification.
[Para 115][1161-B-D]
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India &
Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 438 : [2014] 5 SCR 119; Navtej
Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) 10 SCC 1 : [2018]
7 SCR 379; K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India
& Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1 : [2017] 10 SCR 569 - relied
on.
2.2 Identity is an amalgam of various internal and external
including acquired characteristics of an individual and name can
be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity. And
therefore, an individual must be in complete control of her name
and law must enable her to retain as well as to exercise such
control freely "for all times". Such control would inevitably include
the aspiration of an individual to be recognized by a different name
for a just cause. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for
a guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. This
freedom would include the freedom to lawfully express one's
identity in the manner of their liking. In other words, expression
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER
HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
of identity is a protected element of freedom of expression under
the Constitution. [Para 116][1162-B-D]
2.3 Any change in identity of an individual has to go through
multiple steps and it cannot be regarded as complete without
proper fulfilment of those steps. An individual may self-identify
oneself with any title or epithet at any point of time. But the change
of identity would not be regarded as formally or legally complete
until and unless the State and its agencies take note thereof in
their records. After all, in social sphere, an individual is not only
recognized by how an individual identifies oneself but also by
how his/her official records identify him/her. For, in every public
transaction of an individual, official records introduce the person
by his/her name and other relevant particulars. [Para 118][1162F-G]
2.4 Going by the very nature of rights under Article 19, the
right to get changed name recorded in the official (public) records
cannot be an absolute right and as a matter of public policy and
larger public interest calls for certain reasonable restrictions to
observe consistency and obviate confusion and deceptive attempt.
The test of reasonableness requires that the impugned law is
intelligently crafted in such a manner that it is able to justify the
ultimate impact of the law on its subjects. If it restricts, it must
restrict on the basis of reason and if it permits, it must permit on
the basis of reason. Similarly, if a law draws a classification, it
must classify intelligently i.e., backed by reason. Reason is the
foundation of all laws and their validity is immensely dependent
on the availability of sound reason. Equally crucial is the
availability of a legitimate object. Reasonableness is adjudged in
the specific context of the case and is not confined to the words
of a definition. [Paras 120, 122][1163-B, D-E]
Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2004) 3
SCC 402 : [2004] 2 SCR 900; State of Madras v. V. G.
Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 - relied on.
2.5 The Byelaws permit change of name only if permission
from the Court has been obtained prior to the publication of result.
It puts a clear embargo on any change of name sans prior
permission before the publication. The provision is problematic
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1111
on certain counts. Firstly, it is not a mere restriction on the right,
it is a complete embargo on the right post publication of result of
the candidate. It fails to take into account the possibility of need
for change of name after the publication of result including the
uncertainty of timeline required to obtain such declaration from
the Court of law due to law's delay and upon which the candidate
has no control whatsoever. Whereas, while amending the Byelaws
in 2007, the CBSE itself had noted that children are not of mature
age while passing school examinations and they may not be in a
position to decide conclusively on issues concerning their identity.
The Byelaws completely overlook this possibility when it ordains
seeking declaration from the Court prior to the publication of
results of the concerned examination conducted by it. [Para
123][1164-F-H; 1165-A]
2.6 The overriding state interest, as per the Board, to retain
this stringency is nothing but efficiency of administration.
Administrative efficiency, despite being a crucial concern, has
not been and cannot be elevated to a standard that it is used to
justify non-performance of essential functions by an
instrumentality of the State. To use administrative efficiency to
make it practically impossible for a student to alter her identity
in the Board certificates, no matter how urgent and important it
is, would be highly disproportionate and can in no manner be
termed as a reasonable restriction. Reasonableness would
demand a proper balance between a student's right to be identified
in the official (public) records in manner of her choice and the
Board's argument of administrative efficiency. To sustain this
balance, it would be open to the Board to limit the number of
times such alterations could be permitted including subject to
availability of the old records preserved by it as per the extant
regulations. But to say that post the publication of examination
results and issuance of certificates, there can be no way to alter
the record would be a case of total prohibition and not a reasonable
restraint. [Para 124][1165-B-D]
2.7 The limitation as regards maximum period upto which
changes can be permitted also requires a different approach.
Upon receiving the certificates, the student would naturally be
put to notice of the particulars of certificates. Due to young age
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER
HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
and inadvertence including being casual and indolent, a student
may fail to identify the errors or to understand the probable impact
of those errors and accordingly, may not apply for rectification
immediately. It is also possible that a student may not have to
use the certificates immediately after passing out and by the time
she uses them, the limitation period for correction may elapse.
Therefore, a realistic time for permitting corrections is very
important. Indeed, it can be commensurate with the statutory or
mandatory period upto which CBSE is obliged to preserve its
old record. [Para 125][1165-E-G]
2.8 In case of any ordinary civil rights, it is important that
the action for enforcement of such rights is initiated in prescribed
time and consistency is maintained, but is it permissible to say
the same about fundamental rights? The rights which are
recognised as fundamental under the Constitution are "preferred
or chosen freedoms" and a very sensitive and realistic approach
has to be taken in such matters. One wonders whether after the
lapse of prescribed time, let us say 3 years, there could be no
reasonable and legitimate circumstances to warrant change of
name. At the same time, there is merit in CBSE's argument that
frequent changes cannot be permitted as there is scope of abuse
and misuse, apart from administrative burden. This argument
cannot be lightly brushed aside. The same concerns could apply
to other bodies as well, like Unique Identification Authority of
India and Passport Authority. [Paras 126, 127][1165-G-H; 1166A-B]
2.9 As regards the argument of misuse, no doubt, there
are instances of misuse of provisions that permit change of identity
in criminal matters. However, mere possibility of abuse cannot
deter the Board from fulfilling their essential functions. A
possibility of abuse cannot be used to deny legitimate rights to
citizens. The balance simply does not tilt in favour of such a
proposition. The course of law cannot choose to change its stream
merely because there are apprehensions of abuse on the way.
The Board's concern is only to regulate and maintain efficient
educational standards. It is not a penal authority. If any of the
provisions of Byelaws are subjected to misuse or abuse by anyone,
the Board would be well within its rights to approach the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1113
appropriate body for necessary penal or civil action. As a nodal
agency made for a specific public purpose, CBSE can only use its
means and resources to put proper safeguards in place while
performing its functions. More so, when it is not even the job of
the Board to verify anything, as changes are made after grant of
permission by a Court of law. There is involvement of judicial
application of mind. The Board only has to give effect to the Court
order granting permission, as and when it is so pronounced
irrespective of publication of examination results in earlier point
of time. [Para 128][1166-C-F]
2.10 Administrative efficiency cannot be the sole concern
of CBSE. Every institution desires efficiency in their functioning.
But it does not mean that efficiency is achieved by curbing their
basic functions. Regulation of standard of education would
empower the Board to take all necessary steps, as permissible
under the Resolution and Regulations, to control all possible
aspects of school education that may have a bearing on its
standard. Quality of curriculum, services extended to the
students, effective grievance redressal mechanism, oversight
over affiliated schools etc. are some of the essential elements
touching upon the standard of education. Maintenance of those
standards would demand constant upgradation of rules and
services of the Board in tune with changing needs of the students
and the ultimate goal of education. [Para 129][1166-G; 1167-CD]
2.11 One of the primary functions of the Board is to grant
certificates to its students. Effective maintenance and regulation
of standard of education would include complete accountability
of the Board in grant of such certificates and its duty does not get
extinguished after publication of examination results and issue
of certificates. Rather, it extends to taking care of post-publication
concerns of students as and when they emerge, as students seek
to use their certificates for purposes of higher education and
career opportunities. A narrow reading of the functions of the
Board would leave glaring gaps in the field of school education
and may jeopardize the welfare of students with legitimate
concerns. [Para 130][1167-E-F]
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER
HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
2.12 The concerned Byelaw has been framed on the
assumption that there can be no situation wherein a legitimate
need for change of name could arise for a student after publication
of results. It is presumed that only typographical/factual errors
could come in the certificates and they can be corrected using
the provision for corrections. The presumption is erroneous,
absurd and distances itself from the social realities. There can
be numerous circumstances wherein change of name could be a
legitimate requirement and keeping the ultimate goal of
preserving the standard of education in mind, the Board must
provide for a reasonable opportunity to effect such changes. [Para
131][1167-G-H; 1168-A]
2.13 The two parties here - the Board and students - are
not in an equal position of impact. In other words, the balance of
convenience would tilt in favour of students. For, they stand to
lose more due to inaccuracies in their certificates than the Board
whose sole worry is increasing administrative burden. The
obligation of Board to take additional administrative burden is
no doubt onerous but the propensity of a student losing career
opportunities due to inaccurate certificate is unparalleled. A Board
dealing with maintenance of educational standards cannot
arrogate to itself the power to impact identity of students who
enrol with it. The right to control one's identity must remain with
the individual, subject, of course, to reasonable restrictions. [Para
132][1168-B-C, E-F]
2.14 The utility of certificates issued by the Board is not
confined to educational purposes anymore. They serve a social
purpose today and are often used to cross verify particulars like
name and date of birth while applying for other government
identity documents. They assume immense relevance while
applying for various jobs, both public and private. Interestingly,
CBSE itself has argued at length on the importance and
authoritative value of their certificates. In such circumstances,
an inaccuracy or denial of change could be fatal to a student's
future prospects and all these concerns cannot be brushed aside
in the name of administrative exigencies. [Para 133][1168-G-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1115
2.15 Pertinently, the Parliament is also alive to the social
realities having bearing on identity documents. There are various
statutory enactments wherein detailed provisions are made for
change of identity. The government(s) is cognizant of its duty to
upgrade its identity records in tune with changing requirements
of the citizens. From reasons purely personal to reasons flowing
from life events such as marriage, death or migration, the
authorities are responsive to the changing needs of citizens. As
per the nature of identity, changes are permissible. It is bounden
duty of all state instrumentalities to play the role of enablers in
the exercise of rights by the citizens, including to correct their
records owing to purely personal choices of the citizens. Though,
in an ultimate analysis, this exercise of examining the reasons
has to be left to the court of law empowered to permit changes in
a specific factual scenario. [Paras 134, 136][1169-A-B; 1172-EG; 1173-A]
2.16 No doubt, it is true that CBSE certificates are not
strictly meant to be considered as identity documents, however,
the same are being relied upon for corroborative purposes in all
academic and career related transactions as foundational
document. In fact, the CBSE itself has conceded to this fact that
their certificates are relied for all official purposes, as noted above.
The date of birth in matriculation certificate, in particular, is relied
upon as primary evidence of date of birth of a citizen. Therefore,
as regards the information contained in a CBSE certificate, the
Board must afford opportunity to the students to modify it subject
to complying with requisite formalities which are reasonable in
nature. If all other State agencies could allow it for the preservance
of consistency and accuracy, alongside being enablers in free
exercise of rights by the citizens, there is no reason for the CBSE
to not uphold that right of the students. More so, it would be in
the interest of CBSE's own credibility that their records are
regarded as accurate and latest records of a student worthy of
being relied upon for official purposes. Therefore, this approach
would serve twin purposes - enabling free exercise of rights and
preservance of accuracy. However, the justiciability of the
requested changes can of course be gone into. Law gives no
recognition to an act of shunning essential duties by an entity of
JIGYA YADAV (MINOR) (THROUGH GUARDIAN/FATHER
HARI SINGH) v. C.B.S.E. (CBSE)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
the State. A body entrusted with essential public functions cannot
unduly put fetters on its powers. [Paras 137, 138, 139][1173-BE; G]
Indian Aluminium Company v. Kerala State Electricity
Board (1975) 2 SCC 414 : [1976] 1 SCR 70; J.K.
Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation
Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 283 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR
13 - relied on.
2.17 There are no restrictions on the power of CBSE to
permit change of name. The Constitution, Resolution and
Regulations are functional documents of the Board and none of
these documents provide for any such fetters. Therefore, in the
exercise of its discretion, the Board cannot put fetters on its
duties so as to cause grave prejudice to the students with
legitimate causes for changing their certificates. The exercise of
discretion in this negative manner would be arbitrary and
unreasonable, at best. [Para 139][1175-C]
2.18 The provision regarding change of name "post
publication of examination results" is excessively restrictive and
imposes unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of rights under
Article 19. [Para 140][1175-D]
2.19 On perusal of the examination byelaws from 1995 to
2018, as they sailed through multiple amendments over the course
of time, it is seen that there is hardly any consistency in the
Examination Byelaws operating during the relevant period, either
in the scope of permissible changes or in the timelines provided
for effecting such changes. Presumably, drawing upon experiences
and judicial pronouncements, the Board had to carry out frequent
amendments in the Byelaws, sometimes to do a somersault and
go back to the earlier position.