Supreme Court settles rules for correction of name and date of birth in CBSE certificates: Jigya Yadav vs. CBSE (2021) INSC 332 (03 June 2021)

Case Background

The case involves a batch of 22 petitions concerning requests for corrections or changes in names, surnames, and dates of birth of candidates or their parents in certificates issued by the CBSE. The lead case is that of Ms. Jigya Yadav, who challenged a decision by the High Court of Delhi. Ms. Yadav sought corrections to her parents’ names on her mark sheets, which were incorrectly recorded as “Hari Singh Yadav” instead of “Hari Singh” and “Mamta Yadav” instead of “Mamta.” The High Court rejected her plea, citing Byelaw 69.1 of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, 2007, which allows corrections only to match school records. The High Court noted that the errors were not inadvertent as the parents had consistently used the incorrect names in school forms.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the CBSE Examination Bye-laws, particularly Byelaw 69.1, which deals with changes and corrections in names. The 2007 amendment to these byelaws restricted changes to only those that align with school records. The Supreme Court examined whether these byelaws, which are not statutory, could override an individual’s right to their identity. The Court also considered the interplay between these byelaws and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which gives presumptive value to public documents like birth certificates and Aadhar cards. The court also discussed Article 13 of the Constitution, which defines the term ‘law’.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The amended Byelaw 69.1 is unreasonable and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution by not addressing errors in school records.
• The byelaw infringes upon the right to freely express one’s identity under Article 19(1)(a), the right to dignity under Article 21, and the right to profession under Article 19(1)(g).
• CBSE certificates are public records and should be accurate, respecting the presumption of genuineness under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• CBSE exceeded its powers by amending Byelaw 69.1, limiting its ability to rectify errors.
• The High Court incorrectly connected the case with caste-based reservations, displaying prejudice.
• Parents were not given an option to correct the application form in Class XI.

Respondent’s (CBSE) Arguments:

• The Board followed Byelaw 69.1, which mandates that certificates match school records.
• The 2007 amendment was necessary to prevent misuse of the rectification process.
• CBSE, as an autonomous body, has the power to make and amend its byelaws.
• Parents had ample opportunity to correct school records but failed to do so.
• CBSE byelaws are statutory in nature, framed under powers granted by the Government of India.
• There is no fundamental right to claim a changed identity must be operative since birth.
• Changes in name and date of birth can be misused for employment and manipulating age.
• The relevant date for applying the 2007 byelaws is the date of passing the Class X examination, not the date of application for changes.
• Writ petitions are not appropriate for disputed facts concerning relied-upon documents.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the CBSE Examination Byelaws have the force of law.
2. Whether the examination byelaws impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of rights under Article 19 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the Board is obliged to carry out corrections/changes in certificates due to updated public records.
4. Whether the examination byelaws in force on the date of the examination or the date of the application for correction/change would be relevant.
5. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued for corrections in CBSE certificates in the face of explicit provisions in the examination byelaws.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dhruva Parate vs. CBSE & Anr. and other cases supporting the argument that CBSE cannot restrict its powers with self-imposed limitations were approved.
• Rayaan Chawla vs. University of Delhi & Anr. was partially accepted in that the change in name is prospective but the court did not agree that CBSE cannot change the records.
• Board of Secondary Education of Assam vs. Md. Sarifuz Zaman & Ors. was distinguished on facts.
• Subin Mohammed vs. Union of India was not followed in the manner it was interpreted by the High Courts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was significantly influenced by the need to protect an individual’s right to identity and dignity. The court emphasized that CBSE, as a public body, must act as an enabler for students to correct errors in their certificates. The court also noted that the CBSE’s rules must be reasonable and not impose excessive restrictions on a student’s fundamental rights. The court recognized the importance of public documents and the need for CBSE to consider them when making changes to its records. The court also emphasized the need for a balance between administrative efficiency and the rights of students.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• CBSE must allow corrections in certificates to match school records.
• CBSE must consider updated public documents for changes in certificates.
• The Board must allow for name changes even after the publication of results, subject to reasonable conditions.
• The Board cannot impose a blanket ban on changes after the publication of results.
• The Board should implement a streamlined process for corrections and changes.
• The Byelaws existing on the date of declaration of result and issue of certificate would be relevant for the purpose of effecting changes in the certificates.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the CBSE to:

• Process applications for corrections or changes in certificates, considering school records and updated public documents.
• Allow name changes after the publication of results, subject to reasonable conditions.
• Implement a mechanism for recording changes, including a caption/annotation on the fresh certificate.
• Amend its relevant byelaws to incorporate the new mechanism.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments, so this section is omitted.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that CBSE must act as an enabler in the exercise of a student’s right to identity and must allow for changes in its certificates based on both school records and updated public documents. The court also held that the CBSE cannot impose blanket restrictions on changes after the publication of results and must balance administrative efficiency with the rights of students. This judgment changes the previous position of law where CBSE had complete autonomy on the matter of change of name and date of birth and could deny the same on the basis of its byelaws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jigya Yadav vs. CBSE clarifies the rules for corrections and changes in CBSE certificates. The court has upheld the importance of an individual’s right to identity and has directed CBSE to be more flexible in allowing changes based on updated public documents. The judgment balances the need for administrative efficiency with the fundamental rights of students, ensuring that CBSE acts as an enabler for students to rectify errors in their academic records.