A 52-year old man was yesterday granted leave (permission) by the Court of Appeal to challenge the name stipulated on the chip of Mykad which the National Registration Department (NRD) refused to change.

Following this, the case of Sarj Kumar will be remitted back to the Kuala Lumpur High Court for the hearing of its merits in his judicial review application before another judge.

The unanimous decision was made by Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat who led a three-member bench that also included Justice Mary Lim and Justice Hasnah Mohamed Hashim.

Sarj Kumar, from Malacca, filed the judicial review application on March 28 naming the director-general of the NRD and the government as respondents.

Sarj Kumar said he has faced problems with banks as the name printed on his MyKad differs from the name displayed when the chip is read, as the one on the chip uses his old name.

Born in Perak, he had the name Sarjahan bin Abdullah registered for his birth certificate, but managed to change some particulars including his name in 1998 following a Kuala Lumpur High Court court order in 1997.

He then got married according to Hindu rites and he and his wife now have a 17-year-old son.

However, following the introduction of the chip-based MyKad, he discovered the discrepancy in his name.

As a result, he has to carry another letter from the NRD affirming that Sarj Kumar and Sarjahan bin Abdullah are one and the same person.

Birth cert requirement

In a letter dated Jan 8 this year, the NRD said it could not change his name on the chip as it has to follow the original name of Sarjahan Abdullah listed on his birth certificate.

The judicial review application sought a declaration that the name on the chip is incorrect, a mandamus order to compel the NRD to change the name on the chip to Sarj Kumar, and a certiorari order to quash the NRD's decision on Jan 8 to not change the name on the chip.

Sarj Kumar was represented by lawyer M Manoharan while senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan appeared for the NRD and the government.

Both confirmed that the case was granted leave and reverted back to the Kuala Lumpur High Court.