Juliet asks Romeo, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” is undeniably one of the most famous lines in classical literature. Although it is a lovely remark, it does not reflect how crucial a name is in defining a person’s social identity. Put another way, a person’s name is vital to their identity and affects how they interact with others. This power includes the right to a different name for a valid reason. An individual can adopt any title or epithet, but the State and its agencies must amend their records to recognize the change. An individual’s formal documents and social identity are both crucial. Every public transaction includes a person’s name and other details. The right to have a changed name registered in official public records is not absolute under Article 19. Public policy and the public interest require acceptable constraints to avoid misunderstanding, deception, and inconsistency. These constraints balance the right to name control with the necessity for order and accuracy in official documents. The Delhi and Allahabad High Courts have stressed the Indian Constitution’s right to identity and name change. Article 21 protects the right to life, which includes identification, according to the Delhi High Court. The Allahabad High Court said that Articles 19(1)(a), 21, and 14 of the Constitution guarantee every person the right to keep or alter their name when the court allowed Shahnawaz to change his name to Md. Sameer Rao.
Similarly, according to the Kerala High Court’s decision, the court said having a name and using it however one pleases is a part of Article 21 and Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. A three-judge Supreme Court bench made a major verdict. They considered identity control a fundamental right. This question highlights the CBSE’s jurisdiction to regulate and preserve records versus individuals’ freedom to determine their identity. The Delhi High Court agreed to let two brothers change their father’s last name on their school certificates. They wanted to replace their original surname, “Mochi,” with “Nayak.” The court explained that having the right to be recognized by your name is an important part of your overall right to live and be identified as an individual, as mentioned in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. “Insaan naam mein mazhab dhoond leta hai,” a line from the movie A Wednesday, perfectly fits in this context. The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is acceptable for a person to change their surname to avoid being associated with any caste, which may be a bias factor to such a person, pointing out that the right to identity is an intrinsic part of the Constitution. Back in 2016, Rajya Sabha MP and Dalit ideologue Narendra Jadhav tried pushing for legislation that would outlaw the use of last names or family names in response to the growing injustices experienced by Dalits.
One positive point to justify the argument is that eliminating surnames will effectively end caste consciousness, which underpins Dalit oppression. Compared to Ambedkar’s idea that Hinduism’s traditional rules must be overthrown to eradicate caste. The caste cannot be seen. Hence names are used to determine caste. Expanding on the argument for surnames being identities, we may say that asking someone’s name is a way to determine their caste. Eliminating family names may not solve the problem, but it is a big step toward a merit-based society without castes. India’s longest-handwritten Constitution upholds diversity, unity, equality, and brotherhood. However, names have been a tiny factor in reviving decades-long discrimination. Indians often add titles or surnames to their names. These titles help others imagine a person’s origin, occupation, ancestors’ achievements, and even standing in the country’s caste structure. A recent report suggests justice and equity in Indian civil service recruitment suggesting all applicants’ surnames are confidential. Examiners cannot access this sensitive information to avoid bias during writing tests. Changing one’s surname can benefit families migrating for economic reasons. However, individuals who stay in their villages without a way out must be considered. In small villages and hills, where everyone knows one another, changing one’s surname may not benefit. Instead, it can cause contempt and violence.
Changing surnames is beneficial depending on the circumstances and tactics used. Abolishing caste-based arranged marriages is a more sustainable way to address social issues, but its implementation is dubious. But surnames don’t determine caste in every case. For instance, “Singh” can be used by Yadav, Kurmi, Koeri, Bhumihar, and other castes. Control over one’s name is a fundamental right because it is part of their identity. Name is a distinguishing feature and a claim that can be defended in court. Changing one’s name is a basic right, although acceptable constraints exist. The proportionality principle and human dignity must be considered when deciding whether such constraints suit a name change.
Anwesha Ghosh is Research Scholar at Central University of Punjab and Akash Bag is Research Scholar at Amity University, Chhattisgarh.
