### Registrar Empowered to Correct Minor’s Surname to Reflect Maternal Lineage in Best Interest of Child

Petitioner No. 1 is a minor child born in 2017 out of a live-in relationship between Petitioner No. 2 (the mother) and Khadga Bahadur Saru Magar.

The original birth certificate recorded the father’s name and assigned the child the surname "Saru Magar".

Subsequently, the father abandoned the family and moved to Nepal, providing no maintenance or contact.

Petitioner No. 2 sought to change the child's name to "Priancy Themnunhoi Haokip" to reflect the mother’s derivative name and maternal family name while retaining the father’s name in the relevant column.

The Registrar issued an endorsement refusing the change, claiming a lack of statutory power to effect such a substantive correction.

The Court primarily applied Section 22 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, which empowers the Registrar to correct entries that are "erroneous in form or substance".

It invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India regarding the right to identity and dignity.

It invoked Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex) to establish that maternal lineage stands on equal footing with paternal lineage.

Furthermore, the court relied on the "Best Interest of the Child" doctrine as enshrined in Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

The Court relied on the High Court's plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus.

The Court reasoned that the phrase "erroneous in substance" under Section 22 of the Act is broad enough to cover changes necessitated by altered personal circumstances, such as abandonment by a father.

The Court observed that since the father's name remains on the certificate, biological paternity and associated legal rights (inheritance/maintenance) are preserved, making the name change a matter of nomenclature rather than a substantive legal alteration.

Applying a gender-neutral constitutional lens, the Court held that a child is not mandated to bear the father's surname; insisting otherwise would perpetuate patriarchal hierarchies inconsistent with Article 15.

Finally, the Court determined that as the mother is the sole caregiver, aligning the child’s legal identity with her lived reality (maternal family) is essential for her psychological well-being and practical convenience in school and social integration.

The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Registrar to change the child's name from "Priancy Saru Magar" to "Priancy Themnunhoi Haokip" and issue a fresh certificate within four weeks.

This was subject to Petitioner No. 2 furnishing an indemnity deed.

The Court clarified that the biological parentage remains unchanged and the child's legal rights vis-à-vis the father are not extinguished.