Affidavit identifies Dipankar Ghosh as Dipankar Reang; mother named as Dashirong Reang, but legal and social status cannot be determined by surname alone
Agartala, August 31, 2026: A name-change affidavit circulating on social media has drawn attention in Tripura after a document appeared to show a person changing his surname from “Ghosh” to “Reang.”
According to the affidavit visible in the circulated document, Dipankar Ghosh, son of Mrigendra Narayan Ghosh and Dashirong Reang, has declared that he has changed his surname from “Ghosh” to “Reang” and will henceforth be known as Dipankar Reang for all purposes.
The document states that the declaration was made through Affidavit No. 166/07/26, sworn before a Notary Public on July 20, 2026. It also states that Dipankar Reang and Dipankar Ghosh are one and the same person.
The affidavit has subsequently circulated online, prompting discussion about the reason behind the surname change and whether it has any connection with tribal identity or Scheduled Tribe status.
What does the affidavit actually establish?
At face value, the document establishes only a change of surname.
It does not, by itself, establish that the individual has been recognised by a competent authority as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, nor does it state that the name change was made to obtain reservation or any other benefit.
This distinction is important because surname and legal tribal status are not automatically interchangeable.
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ current state-wise list of Scheduled Tribes includes Reang in the Tripura list.
The Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council also lists Reang among the tribal communities of Tripura.
However, simply adopting the surname “Reang” does not, by itself, prove Scheduled Tribe status.
The mother-father identity mentioned in the affidavit
One detail in the document has attracted particular attention.
While the father is identified as Mrigendra Narayan Ghosh, the mother is identified as Dashirong Reang.
That raises a natural question about the circumstances behind the surname change and whether it represents a personal decision to adopt the mother’s community surname.
However, those questions should not automatically be interpreted as allegations of wrongdoing.
The affidavit itself does not provide an explanation for why the surname was changed.
What does the law say about tribal status?
The legal question becomes more complicated when the issue goes beyond a name and involves a claim to Scheduled Tribe status.
The Supreme Court, in Anjan Kumar v. Union of India, considered the case of a person born to a Scheduled Tribe mother and a non-tribal father. The Court examined whether the person could claim Scheduled Tribe status and emphasised the importance of the social environment in which the person was brought up and whether the person experienced the disadvantages associated with the tribal community
The principle is therefore important in the present context:
A surname alone cannot establish a person’s Scheduled Tribe status.
Questions of tribal status can involve factors such as community identity, upbringing, social circumstances and the applicable legal and administrative requirements.
The Supreme Court has also subsequently considered cases involving children of inter-community marriages, demonstrating that the issue is more nuanced than simply determining status from the father’s or mother’s surname.
Why this matter deserves scrutiny
The issue becomes significant because Scheduled Tribe recognition carries constitutional and legal consequences, including access to reservation and certain welfare provisions.
Therefore, if a person changes a surname to the name of a recognised tribal community, legitimate questions may arise if that change is subsequently used as evidence for obtaining an ST certificate or reservation benefit.
But there is currently no evidence in the publicly circulating affidavit itself showing that such a claim has been made in this case.
I has therefore found no basis to conclude that the surname change was undertaken to obtain an ST certificate, reservation or any government benefit.
Such a conclusion would require documentary evidence from the relevant authorities.
What remains unanswered?
Several questions remain open:
Why was the surname changed from Ghosh to Reang?
Was the change purely personal or connected to community identity?
Has the individual applied for or obtained a Scheduled Tribe certificate?
If an ST certificate has been issued, what documents and evidence were considered by the competent authority?
Has the surname change been reflected in official records such as educational, employment or government documents?
Has any government authority raised an objection or initiated verification?
At present, these questions cannot be answered solely from the affidavit circulating online.
A document that raises questions—not conclusions
The affidavit is undoubtedly noteworthy because it records a change from Ghosh, a surname commonly associated with Bengali communities, to Reang, the name used by a recognised tribal community in Tripura.
But journalism must distinguish between a documented fact and an assumption about its motive.
The documented fact is that the affidavit says Dipankar Ghosh has changed his surname to Dipankar Reang.
The motive behind the change—and whether it has any connection with a claim to Scheduled Tribe status—remains unestablished from the available material.
Until additional official records or a statement from the individual concerned become available, the surname change should be treated as a matter raising questions rather than evidence of any wrongdoing.
I has based this report on the affidavit visible in the publicly circulating image and publicly available legal and government records. The publication does not allege that the individual has committed any offence or made any false claim.
