REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh Appellant

V/S

C.B.S.E. (Central Board Of Secondary Education) Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

YORK CORPORATION V. HENRY LEETHAM AND SONS LTD [REFERRED TO]
STRAFFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE CANAL NAVIGATION V. BIRMINGHAM CANAL NAVIGATION [REFERRED TO]
KABIR JAISWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA THAKUR AND ANR. VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION V. HODGSON (WICKFORD) LTD [REFERRED TO]
VYSHNAV @ VISHNU VISWAM V. VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. V G ROW:THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
BIRAD MAL SINGHVI VS. ANAND PUROHIT [REFERRED TO]
J K AGGARWAL VS. HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION OF ASSAM VS. MOHAMMAD SARIFUZ ZAMAN [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF N C T OF DELHI VS. SANJEEVALIASBITTOO [REFERRED TO]
BINNY LTD VS. V SADASIVAN [REFERRED TO]
CIDCO VS. VASUDHA GORAKHNATH MANDEVLEKAR [REFERRED TO]
SOMDEV KAPOOR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DHRUVA PARATE VS. CBSE [REFERRED TO]
SUBIN MOHAMMED S. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. VS. M/S. PALAKKAD HERITAGE HOTELS [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA THR SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAYAAN CHAWLA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", said Juliet. This quote from William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" is unarguably one of the most iconic dialogues in classical literature. It conveys that the natural characteristics of an individual are more important than his/her artificial/acquired characteristics. A poetic statement as it certainly is, it does not go in tune with the significance of a name in marking the identity of an individual in his/her societal transactions. To put it differently, name is an intrinsic element of identity.

(2.) The seminal issue in these cases is: whether an individual's control over such cardinal element of identity could be denied to him/her by the Central Board of Secondary Education[1] on the specious ground that its Examination Byelaws of 2007[2] must prevail over the claim of the candidate, which are merely intended to regulate such a claim and to delineate the procedure for correction/change in the contents of certificate (s) issued by it including regarding maintenance of its office records?

(3.) The CBSE Examination Byelaws restrict, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the corrections/changes that can be carried out in the certificates issued by the Board. Various students with need-based requests approached different High Courts resulting into inconsistent outcomes leading up to this batch of appeals. Apart from the fact that the judgments have produced conflicting outcomes, the petitions raise some peculiar questions on the constitutional validity of CBSE Examination Byelaws (as amended from time to time) and interpretation thereof.

Click here to view full judgment.

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

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address