Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Nidhi Gupta And Another vs Uoi And Another on 3 July, 2025
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C ) No. 575/2023
Nidhi Gupta and another ....petitioners
Through :- Mr. Sahil Tagotra Advocate.
V/s
UOI and another
Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma DSGI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
1 By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
(i) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a
fresh passport in favour of petitioner No. 2, in respect of
application File No. JM1066482672222, he being a citizen of
India;
(ii) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to
insist on mentioning the father’s name on the passport of
petitioner No. 2;
(iii) Quashing of the show cause notice dated 13.01.2023 issued
by respondent No. 1 to petitioner No. 2, being arbitrary and
illegal;
(iv) An award of costs by way of compensation and legal
expenses to the petitioners for the inordinate delay in processing
Passport Application File No. JM1066482672222, filed on behalf
of petitioner No. 2;
2
(v) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Factual Matrix
2 Petitioner No. 1, being the mother and legal guardian of
petitioner No. 2, who is a minor aged 10 years, applied for issuance of a fresh
passport for her son before the Regional Passport Office, Jammu on
02.06.2022. The said application has remained pending for over nine months.
Petitioner No. 1 had obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent from her
former husband, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, vide judgment and order dated
13.09.2021 passed by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, SAS
Nagar, Mohali. A certified copy of the said judgment is annexed with this
petition. Vide the said judgment, the exclusive custody of the minor child
(petitioner No. 2) was granted to the mother (petitioner No. 1). However,
despite the decree, the Regional Passport Officer, Jammu initially insisted that
both parents must be physically present to process the passport application. A
copy of the letter dated 04.07.2022 issued by respondent No. 2 is annexed
herewith.
3 Thereafter, by way of emails dated 18.07.2022 and 19.07.2022,
the father of petitioner No. 2 conveyed his consent to proceed with the
application in his absence. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 submitted a written
request to the Regional Passport Officer, Jammu, seeking to process the
pending application without mentioning the father’s name. She also submitted
an affidavit affirming that the father had no objection to the issuance of a
passport to petitioner No. 2 without his name being mentioned.
3
4 Despite the above, the application continued to be withheld
solely on the ground that the father’s name had not been mentioned. Petitioner
No. 1 further submitted a copy of Press Release dated 23.12.2016 issued by
the Ministry of External Affairs, which clarified that only one parent’s name
(either mother or father or legal guardian) is required.However, the Assistant
Passport Officer continued to insist on inclusion of the father’s name,
disregarding the said Press Release and the applicable rules. Consequently,
petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on
14.12.2022.In response to an RTI application, the Appellate Authority, on
13.01.2023, informed that the case required in-depth examination and
simultaneously issued a show cause notice of even date, calling upon
petitioner No. 2 to respond.
5 It is submitted that the delay in issuance of passport is arbitrary,
unjustified, and based on misinterpretation of the applicable rules and
guidelines, causing hardship to the petitioners.
6 In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have filed their
objections, wherein it is stated that, in accordance with the Passport Rules and
the instructions of the PSP Division of the Ministry of External Affairs dated
13.01.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, requiring them
to provide the father’s consent and his name. It is submitted that, as no
response was received from the petitioners, a reminder to the said notice was
sent, however, the father’s consent has not been provided till date. It is further
submitted that, instead of responding to the notice, the petitioners have filed
the present writ petition without any cause of action.
4
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
8 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
Rules do not mandate that both parents’ names be mentioned in the
application form or printed on the passport. Mentioning the mother’s name
alone is sufficient, especially where the applicant is under the sole
guardianship of the mother pursuant to a Court decree. It is further submitted
that the right to a passport is a fundamental right and has been so held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1
SCC 248, wherein it has been held that a passport is, in any event, merely an
enabling document to apply for a visa in case the applicant intends to travel
abroad, and not ipso facto a licence to leave the country. A coordinate Bench
of Delhi High Court, in the case of Ishman vs. Regional Passport Office,
directed the issuance of a passport to an applicant without mentioning her
father’s name. Similarly, in Vibhas Arora vs. Regional Passport Officer,
the Delhi High Court has held that the passport shall be issued to the
petitioner without insisting on the disclosure of the father’s name. The
relevant portion of paragraph 12 of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“12…. the respondents are directed to issue a passport to the
petitioner without insisting on the father’s name being disclosed
in the passport. In case there is any impediment in the software
accepting the application form without the father’s name, as
contended by the respondent, the respondents shall modify their
software as expeditiously as possible…”
09 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on
Annexure-C appended to the Passports Rules, 1980, which provides that an
affidavit is to be submitted with the application for issuance of a passport to a
5
minor child by either parent (who are separated5 but not formally divorced),
or by a single parent of a child born out of wedlock.
10 Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India,
submits that the passport application earlier filed by the petitioners on
02.06.2022 has since been closed. He further submits that the petitioners are
at liberty to file a fresh application for issuance of passport, duly accompanied
by an affidavit in the format prescribed under Annexure-C of the Passport
Rules, 1980, which enables a single parent to apply on behalf of a minor
child. It is submitted that, in terms of the applicable rules, there is neither any
requirement to obtain the consent of the biological father, nor any mandate to
disclose or reflect his name in the application. Learned counsel further
submits that since petitioner No.1 is adamant not to reflect the name of the
biological father of her minor son, it is open to her to submit a fresh
application in accordance with the aforementioned procedure, and the
respondents shall have no objection to the consideration of such application in
accordance with the rules applicable.
11 In view of the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of
with the following directions:
(i) Petitioner No.2, through Petitioner No.1, shall apply afresh for
the issuance of a passport, enclosing all relevant documents,
including the decree of divorce, custody order, and the affidavit
as per Annexure-C of the Passport Rules, 1980, within a period
of two weeks from today;
(ii) Upon receipt of such fresh application, the respondents shall
process the same expeditiously in accordance with the applicable
rules;
(iii) The entire process shall be completed within a period of four
(04) weeks from the date of receipt of the fresh application along
with a certified copy of this judgment.
6
12 Insofar as the prayer for quashing of the show cause notice and
compensation for delay is concerned, the same is not being gone into in this
proceedings, as the main relief stands substantially granted by consent of the
parties. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek appropriate
remedies in accordance with law, if so advised.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
Jammu
03.07.2025
Sanjeev whether approved for judgment: Yes/No