The minister of state for housing and urban affairs had notified the Rajya Sabha that the government notification requiring women to either obtain a no-objection certificate from their husbands or furnish divorce papers in order to re-adopt their maiden surnames is aimed at averting legal hassles. This response assumes immense significance in the backdrop of a case filed before the Delhi High Court challenging this gazette notification.

The government informed the Rajya Sabha that in 2014, the ministry’s publication department had updated the rules for streamlining the process for handling applications, including those pertaining to a change of name. The ministry further contended that any change in name would involve a change in a person’s identity which would necessitate close monitoring to curtail potential misuse and to uphold the sanctity of government notifications. According to the undated notification published on the website of the department of publication of MoHUA, if an application has been submitted for reverting to the maiden surname and the matter is pending adjudication before a court of law, the applicant’s name change cannot be processed until the final judgment is passed. In cases where the former husband chooses not to issue the NOC and the parties are involved in divorce proceedings, the woman is compelled to wait until the pronouncement of the final verdict.

The plea contesting this notification before the Delhi High Court stated that the stipulations introduce unnecessary barriers for individuals exercising their constitutional right to choose their name and that by subjecting women to more burdensome conditions compared to men seeking a change in name, the notification discriminates against them, thereby violating their constitutional rights. The plea also argued that the notification defies a Supreme Court judgment, which underscored that an individual must be in complete control of his/her name and that the law must enable an individual to retain as well as exercise such control freely.

The gazette notification is a reflection of deep-seated gender discrimination. The
extant requirement of additional paperwork and permissions places excessive and undue requirements solely on women. The very notion of an NOC is draconian, has a chilling effect on the rights envisaged under Article 14 (equality before law), Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liability) of the Constitution, and is violative of the principles of natural justice.

A name is not merely an identification tag. It represents a person’s sense of the self. The act of effecting a name-change can be symbolic of reclaiming one’s identity. Mandating a woman to procure an NOC from her husband before permitting a change to her maiden surname raises significant concerns about gender equality and personal freedom. Such a pre-requisite erodes a woman’s right to make autonomous decisions about her identity and self-expression, a right that needs to be intrinsic and unencumbered. The requirement of an NOC from the husband suggests that a woman’s identity and existence stem from her marital status and that a man
has complete proprietorship over her identity. This also reeks of the persistence
of patriarchal norms in modern policies.

Individual identity and equality ought to be the pillars of a modern, progressive society. Social systems and legal frameworks that unshackle personal choices from patriarchal prejudices and champion personal autonomy are of paramount importance. Choosing and changing a name are acts that must be free from the approval and control of others.