- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.17484 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MISS.DIMPANA S D/O SIDDALINGA MURTHY M C AND TEJASWINI H G AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.458/458/1 5TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS BEHIND EURO IGOS LAYOUT BHAVANI NAGAR RAILWAY LAYOUT ULLAL MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 056 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER SIDDALINGA MURTHY M C AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.458/458/1 5TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS BEHIND EURO IGOS LAYOUT BHAVANI NAGAR RAILWAY LAYOUT ULLAL MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 056. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.H SURESH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 AND: THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BBMP, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AT ANNEXURE-G DATED 28.04.2025 BEARING DOCUMENT NO.SLNO/RRNV/PR/80/25-26 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is the minor daughter of the natural guardian namely Siddalinga Murthy M C, is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 28.04.2025 issued by the respondent evidenced at Annexure-G. 2. The petitioner, a minor daughter, is aged 3½ years and on her birth, the parents of the petitioner got her name registered as Dimpana S in the Birth - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths vide Registration No.803162/B/B/2021/018375, which was issued on 05.06.2021 evidenced at Annexure-A. When the parents of the petitioner herein approached the astrologer, it was brought to their notice that the name of the petitioner is astrologically inappropriate. This prompted the parents of the petitioner to seek change of name of the petitioner from Dimpana S to Diya Upaasana S. 3. The parents of the petitioner have sworn to an affidavit before the Notary Public dated 23.04.2025, stating their intention to change the name of their daughter due to astrological reasons, which is evidenced at Annexure-E. Pursuant thereto, an application was submitted to the respondent–Authority seeking to change the petitioner’s name from Dimpana S to Diya Upaasana S. However, the said application has been rejected, and an endorsement to that effect has been issued by the respondent–Authority, as evidenced - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 at Annexure-G, on the ground that there is no provision for changing the petitioner’s full name. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has placed reliance on the reported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of MASTER ADHRITH BHAT VS. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS in W.P.No.6370/2024. Placing reliance on the judgment, he would contend that the said issue is given a quietus by the Co-ordinate Bench. The issue on hand is squarely covered by the judgment cited supra. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP acknowledges the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench. However, he submits that there is no provision under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short 'Act, 1969'), for effecting a change of the full name. He contends that Section 15 contemplates correction of errors or inaccuracies in the entries made in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 the Birth Register, where such errors have occurred inadvertently or due to clerical or factual mistakes at the time of registration. According to him, the present case does not pertain to any such inadvertent or clerical error, but rather involves a request for a change of name based on re-naming, which is beyond the scope of Section 15. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the stand taken by the BBMP, this Court considers it appropriate to extract paragraph Nos.16 to 22 of the judgment rendered in W.P. No.6370/2024, which squarely covers the issue, for ready reference. "16. Rule 10 of the Rules reads as under: 10. Period for the purpose of Section 14. (1) Where the birth of any child had been registered without a name, the parent or guardian of such child shall, within 12 months from the date of registration of the birth of child, give information regarding the name of the child to the Registrar either orally or in writing: Provided that if the information is given after the aforesaid period of 12 months but within a period of 15 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 years, which shall be reckoned. In case where the registration had been made prior to the date of commencement of these rules from such date or.- (i) in case where the registration is made after the date of commencement of these rules, from such date, or (ii) in case where the registration is made after the date of commencement of these rules, from the date of such registration, the Registrar shall, (iii) if the register is in his possession forthwith enter the name in the relevant column of the concerned form in the birth register on payment of a late fee of rupees five, and (a) if the register is not in his possession and if the information is given orally, make a report giving necessary particulars, and, if the information is given in writing, forward the same to the Tahsildar or the Commissioner/Chief Officer of the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council as the case may be, for making the necessary entry on payment of a late fee therein of rupees five. (2) The parent or the guardian, as the case may be, shall also present to the Registrar the copy of the extract given to him under Section 12 or a certified extract issued to him under Section 17 and on such presentation the Registrar shall make the necessary - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 endorsement relating to the name of the child or take action as laid down in Clause (b) of the proviso to sub- rule(1).” 17. As could be seen from above, Rule 10 provides that where the birth of any child had been registered without any name, the parent or guardian of such child is required to give information regarding the name of the child within 12 months and thereafter by virtue of Section 14 of the Act, the entries were required to be made. The proviso to Rule 10 also states the procedure to be followed if the information is provided after the period of 12 months has lapsed but within a period of 15 years from the date of registration. 18. It would therefore be clear that under the Rules, if no name has been furnished at the time of registration of the birth, the parent can within an outer limit of 15 years from the date of registration furnish the name of the child and ensure that it had been entered in the Birth Certificate. 19. However, in the instant case, it is stated that the petitioner’s father had given his son a new name and therefore, the entry in the Birth Register was also to be modified. 20. There is admittedly no provision under the Act or the Rules which provide for change of name which is already registered. This is therefore an obvious anomaly which would create unnecessary hardship to the parents - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 or to the child in case they desire to have the name changed. 21. It is common practice in our country that a person decides to give himself a new name or that a parent decides to change the name though he has already been given a name. In fact, it is a practice in our country that multiple names are given, but one name is entered in the records and this, at times, creates confusion regarding the identity of the person. 22. The Legislature would have to take a view on this and ensure that the citizens are not put to any hardship whenever they desire to change their names and evolve a procedure where the records of that particular person are also changed simultaneously in all the public records or at least in the relevant records." 7. It is well settled that statutory authorities, while exercising their powers under beneficial legislations such as the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, must interpret the provisions in a purposive and citizen-centric manner. In the present case, the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s request for change of name solely by relying on Section 15 of the Act, 1969 contending that there is no provision enabling a change of the full name once it is recorded in the Birth Register. However, such a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 narrow and technical interpretation defeats the larger purpose of maintaining accurate and relevant civil records that reflect the genuine identity and intent of the individual or their lawful guardians. Section 15 of the Act, 1969 reads as follows: “If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in any entry in the register of births or deaths, the Registrar may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government, correct the error by making a suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction.” 8. A plain reading of Section 15 of the Act, 1969 indicates that the provision is designed to correct clerical or formal errors, which may have occurred at the time of original registration. While it is true that Section 15 does not expressly provide for re-naming or substitution of an already registered name, it also does not prohibit such a change, especially where there is no fraudulent intent and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 the request is made by the lawful guardians of a minor child for bonafide reasons. 9. More importantly, Section 15 of the Act, 1969 must be read in conjunction with Rule 10 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, which clearly provides a mechanism for entering the name of a child even after registration of birth, within a prescribed period. The provision recognises the fluid nature of naming practices in India and provides for such changes up to a period of 15 years. 10. In the absence of any specific statutory bar and in light of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution which protects the right to identity, dignity and autonomy of individuals including the right to have one’s correct name reflected in public records, the authorities cannot rigidly invoke Section 15 of the Act, 1969 to decline a legitimate request for change of name. Such an approach is neither supported by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 express language of the Act nor consistent with the object it seeks to achieve. 11. In the present case, the parents of the petitioner have, through a sworn affidavit, expressed their bona fide intent to change the name of their daughter from Dimpana S to Diya Upaasana S for astrological reasons. The petitioner, being of tender age, will not suffer any adverse consequence or identity conflict due to such a change, especially as she has not yet entered formal education or public records beyond birth registration. Therefore, following the reasoning adopted by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.6370/2024, and in the absence of any express prohibition under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 or the Rules framed thereunder, this Court holds that the petitioner’s application for change of name deserves sympathetic consideration and cannot be denied merely on a rigid interpretation of Section 15 of the Act, 1969. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 12. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s application on the sole ground that Section 15 Act, 1969 does not contemplate a change of name is legally untenable. The authorities ought to have considered the request in a liberal and pragmatic manner, especially when the child is of a tender age, and the change is sought for genuine and culturally significant reasons. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 28.04.2025 vide Annexure-G is hereby quashed and set-aside. (iii) The respondent – Authority is directed to change the name of the petitioner from Dimpana S to Diya Upaasana S and issue fresh Birth Certificate by taking cognizance of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26197 WP No. 17484 of 2025 the reported judgment rendered in W.P.No.6370/2024. (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12