Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Multiple petitions were filed seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Officer to amend passports to incorporate the correct date of birth (and/or place of birth). The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr. Jitendra Malkan, waived service for the respondent. The petitions raised the same or similar grievances and sought similar reliefs. The Court noted a limited consensus that detailed narration of facts of each petition was unnecessary because the legal issue had already been addressed by this Court in its judgment dated 24.2.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 2716 of 2006 (Coram: M.R. Shah, J.), and by earlier observations of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jigar Harish Shah v. Union of India and Anr (AIR 2001 Bombay 60). The petitions were therefore disposed of with directions applying those legal principles and relevant statutory provisions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether petitioners seeking correction of date of birth/place of birth in passports must obtain orders from the High Court, or whether the Passport Authority is statutorily obliged to consider and, after enquiry, correct or amend passports based on supporting documents.
  2. What is the procedure and scope of enquiry the Passport Authority must carry out when presented with supporting documents (including when there are conflicting documents from different competent authorities)?
  3. Whether the Passport Authority may insist upon a court order where there are conflicting sources of valid proof, and if so, from which courts such an order is appropriate.
  4. What procedural safeguards (recording reasons, furnishing copies of reasons, time for disposal) are required if the Passport Authority refuses to grant corrections?

Arguments of the Parties

Passport Authority / Learned Advocates for the Passport Authority

  • Relied upon the Ministry of External Affairs instructions dated 18.4.2001 (No. VI/401/2/5/2001) which state:
    • Where an applicant seeks rectification/correction of date/place of birth, the Passport Issuing Authority (PIA) may, after verification, treat the correction as a technical correction and affect it without a declaratory order.
    • If a competent authority (e.g., municipal body or educational board) issues a correction or amendment, the PIA may amend the passport without insisting on a court order; also relying on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act for amendments by the competent authority.
    • Where initial entry was made on one competent authority's document and the applicant later presents a different competent authority's certificate resulting in conflicting proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to obtain a civil order from a competent court certifying the valid date/place of birth.

Assistant Solicitor General (Mr. Jitendra Malkan)

  • Submitted that where the passport contains a laminated page or part that needs correction, a new passport must be issued because it is impossible to correct an entry made on a laminated sheet of the passport.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Special Civil Application No. 2716 of 2006 (Judgment dated 24.2.2006, Coram: M.R. Shah, J.) The principle that petitioners need not obtain a court order where the passport authority, on examining supporting documents issued by a competent authority under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, can itself undertake correction of date/place of birth; and that such petitions are not warranted when the passport authority is required to look into supporting documents and act according to law. The Court applied that judgment's observations as the legal basis for disposing the present petitions, directing petitioners to apply to the Passport Authority and directing the Authority to consider and decide such applications after necessary enquiry in accordance with law.
Jigar Harish Shah v. Union of India and Anr, AIR 2001 Bombay 60 (Division Bench of Bombay High Court) The principle that the Passport Authority should hold an enquiry on the petitioner's claim as to correct date of birth and, if satisfied, effect the change in the passport; where conflicting competent authorities' documents exist, the Passport Authority can insist on a civil court order; High Courts should not enter into disputed questions of fact under Article 226. The Court quoted and relied on these observations to reinforce that the Passport Authority must hold enquiries and may effect changes if satisfied; where genuineness is doubtful due to conflicting documents, the Authority may ask for a court order from an appropriate civil court rather than invoking Article 226 in the High Court.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeds by reference to (a) the prior judgments cited above, (b) the Ministry of External Affairs instructions dated 18.4.2001, and (c) the relevant statutory provisions in the Passports Act, 1967 and the Passports Rules, 1980 (notably Rule 5 and Sub-section (2) of Section 5).

Key steps in the Court's reasoning, as recorded in the opinion:

  1. The Court accepted that the legal position was already addressed by its earlier judgment (Special Civil Application No. 2716 of 2006) and by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Jigar Harish Shah. Given that common legal issue, individual factual narrations for each petition were unnecessary.
  2. The Court summarized the Ministry of External Affairs instructions (18.4.2001) which permit the Passport Issuing Authority (PIA) to make technical corrections after verification, to amend passports when a competent authority issues a corrective certificate, and to insist on a civil court order where there are conflicting competent authorities' documents.
  3. The Court examined Rule 5 of the Passports Rules, 1980 and Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967. It noted the statutory scheme requires the passport authority, on receipt of an application, to make such enquiry as it considers necessary and then decide (issue, endorse, or refuse) in writing. Where clauses (b) or (c) of Sub-section (2) are invoked (i.e., refusal to endorse or issue), the authority must record brief reasons in writing and furnish a copy on demand except in exceptional national-interest circumstances.
  4. A conjoint reading of the statutory provisions, rules, and the instructions led the Court to conclude that the Passport Authority is under a statutory obligation to entertain fresh applications for passport corrections and to make necessary enquiries. This does not guarantee correction in every case, but requires the authority to record reasons and furnish them on demand when refusing.
  5. The Court observed that in cases where the applicant produces a certificate issued by an authority different from that which was the basis for the original passport entry, the Passport Authority may require the applicant to obtain an order from a competent civil court before effecting the change—consistent with the MEA instructions and the Bombay High Court's guidance.
  6. The Court noted the procedural alternative: an applicant may surrender the passport for revocation under Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Passports Act (allowing the authority to revoke a passport on the holder's application), and thereafter there may be no legal bar to entertaining a fresh application for a new passport followed by proper enquiry.
  7. The Court accepted the submission (by the Assistant Solicitor General) that if a laminated part of the passport requires correction, a new passport must be issued because the laminated entry cannot be altered.
  8. On the basis of the above analysis and the prior judicial pronouncements, the Court framed directions to govern how such passport correction applications should be processed and disposed of.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Rule is made absolute in each petition in the terms set out in the opinion, with no order as to costs.

Direct implications and consequences for the parties (as explicitly directed in the opinion):

  • Applicants seeking change or correction in date/place of birth must make an appropriate application in Form No. 1 (new passport) or Form No. 2 (Miscellaneous Services), as applicable.
  • The Passport Authority (respondent) is required to accept and entertain such applications, hold necessary enquiries, and decide the applications following the procedure prescribed in the Passports Act, 1967 and the Passports Rules, 1980, and in accordance with Section 5 of the Act.
  • If the Passport Authority decides not to grant the passport or correction, it must record its reasons in writing and, on demand, furnish a copy to the applicant except in the exceptional circumstances contemplated in Sub-section (3) of Section 5.
  • Where the Passport Authority refuses or does not grant relief, the applicant remains free to take appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.
  • The Passport Issuing Authority should complete its process within a reasonable time and should provide reasonable assistance and guidance to applicants to avoid unauthorized or improper advice being sought or given to unwary applicants.
  • Where a laminated portion of a passport would need correction or modification, a new passport has to be issued (as submitted by the Assistant Solicitor General).
  • No order as to costs was made.

Broader precedent or doctrinal impact: The opinion applies and reaffirms the approach laid down in the cited precedents and statutory provisions. The judgment does not purport to create a new legal principle beyond applying those existing authorities and statutory requirements to the petitions before the Court.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Gunvantiben Dayarambhai Patel And Ors. v. Union Of India

    1. Rule. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, waives service for the respondent. All these petitions are voicing the same or similar grievance and seeking similar relief of direction to the Regional Passport Officer to, in effect, amend the passport so as to incorporate the correct date of birth. There was a limited consensus that detailed examination and narration of facts of each petition was not required and the legal issue involved in the matter was squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.2.2006 of this Court (Coram: M.R.Shah, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 2716 of 2006 and allied matters, wherein important observations, as under, are made:

    (7)...Therefore, this Court fails to appreciate that why such order of this Court requires to be obtained by the petitioner/s herein and/or any of applicant or the person who wants to have necessary correction in the passport in the date of birth and/or the place of birth on the basis of the certificate issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Births and Deaths Registration Act and to obtain the simple order by this Court merely directing the passport authority to look into the same and to pass the order in accordance with law.... This Court is of the firm opinion that for the aforesaid relief when the passport authority itself is correcting the date of birth and/or place and looking into the supporting documents in accordance with law, such petitions are not warranted as the passport authority itself has to undertake such an exercise....

    (9) At this stage, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the Passport Authority have relied upon the instructions issued by the Ministry of External Affairs vide No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 18.4.2001 which reads as under:

    (a)Where an applicant is seeking rectification / correction of a mistake in the entry on date of birth / place of birth in the passport, PIA may after verifying / satisfying himself, affect the correction treating the same as a technical correction. There is no need for a declaratory order in such cases.

    (b) Where a competent authority issuing a birth certificate or an educational board registering a date of birth along with place of birth as valid were to issue any correction or amendment, PIA may affect the necessary amendment in a passport without insisting on a court order. As per the provisions of Section-21 of the General Clauses Act, 1997, a competent authority issuing a certificate could also make necessary amendment to the same.

    (c) Where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority i.e. a school / educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e. Municipal Authorities resulting in conflicting sources of valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to obtain a civil order from a competent court of jurisdiction, certifying the valid date of birth / place of birth.

    2. The relevant observations of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jigar Harish Shah v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 2001 Bombay 60 are quoted in the aforesaid judgment as under:-

    We, therefore, instead of issuing a direction to the Judicial Magistrate in this matter, direct the Passport Authority itself to hold an enquiry on hearing the petitioner in relation to the petitioner's claim about his correct date of birth and in case the Passport Authority is satisfied with regard to the claim put forth by the petitioner, we further order it to effect the necessary change in the Passport issued in favour of the petitioner.

    It is ultimately held that:

    ...However, in a case where initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority i.e. a school / educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e. Municipal Authorities resulting in conflicting sources of valid proof, and when such request is made with supporting documents, the Passport Authority is required to consider the said application and is required to hold necessary enquiry with regard to genuineness of the same and if the passport authority is satisfied with the same, necessary amendment and / or change can be effected in the passport. However, if after holding necessary enquiry as to the genuineness of the document in respect of the date of birth and place is doubted, in that case, it will be open for the Passport Authority to insist for court's declaratory order and as stated above, from the Civil Court and/or from the competent authority and certainly not from the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same would amount to entering into disputed questions of fact which the High Court normally would not like to enter into in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

    3. With the above observations, all the petitions were disposed relegating the petitioner to move an appropriate application for necessary correction and/or amendment and/or change in the date of birth and/or place of birth as the case may be and the Passport Authority was directed to consider the same after holding necessary enquiry as stated in the judgment and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits and in light of the observations made in the judgment. It was further directed that henceforth the passport authority shall not straightaway refuse to entertain the application and/or to accept the application for correction of the date of birth and place of birth without holding any enquiry and shall not straightaway without holding necessary enquiry call upon the applicant to obtain appropriate order from the Court. It was, however, clarified by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the said order was under consideration for implementation or being carried in appeal.

    4. The Passports Rules, 1980, made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 24 of the Passports Act, 1967, provide in Rule 5, as under:

    5. Form of applications:

    (1) An application for the issue of passport or travel document or for the renewal thereof or for any miscellaneous service shall be made in the appropriate Form set out therefor in Part 1 of Schedule III and in accordance with the procedure and instructions set out in such form:

    Provided that ....

    Provided further that in the course of any inquiry under Sub-section (2) of Section 5, a passport authority may require an applicant to furnish such additional information, documents or certificates, as may be considered necessary by such authority for the proper disposal of the application.

    (2) ...

    (3) ...

    5.1 The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 referred to in the proviso to Rule 5 read as under:

    (2) On receipt of an application under this section, the passport authority, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, by order in writing-

    (a) issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel documents the endorsement, in respect of the foreign country or countries specified in the application; or

    (b) issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application and refuse to make an endorsement in respect of the other country or countries; or

    (c) refuse to issue the passport or travel document or, as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement.

    (3) Where the passport authority makes an order under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) on the application of any person, it shall record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for making such order and furnish to that person on demand a copy of the same unless in any case the passport authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such copy.

    5.2 The form of application prescribed under Rule 5 quoted hereinabove contains, inter alia, Passport Information Booklet prescribed under the Rules and it clearly stipulates below Clause (4) as under:

    Cautions:Date of Birth/Place of birth once included in the Passport will not be changed under any circumstances. In case of error applicant will have to make a fresh application enclosing relevant evidence for obtaining fresh passport with correct date and place of birth.

    6. A conjoint reading of the above statutory provisions would clearly indicate that the passport authority is under a statutory obligation to entertain a fresh application for passport showing correct date of birth and it is under an obligation to make necessary enquiries. It, however, does not mean that, in all cases, the passport with necessary corrections has to be issued but the authority is required to record its reasons and, except in the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 5, required to furnish the applicant, on demand, a copy of the reasons recorded in writing for refusing to issue the passport. Therefore, it is obvious that, under the scheme of the Act, Rules and the prescribed guidelines, the proper course of action for the applicant is to make necessary application in the prescribed form either for Miscellaneous Services in Form No. 2 or in the prescribed application for new passport in Form No. 1 and the passport authority is legally required to entertain and decide the same. In view of the Instructions dated 18.4.2001 quoted hereinabove, the passport authority may require the applicant to obtain an order from a competent Court in case of request for change on the basis of the certificate issued by an authority other than the one which had issued the original certificate on the basis of which the passport was issued. However, in such case, it should be open for the applicant to surrender the passport for revocation under the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act which read as under:

    10 (4): The passport authority may also revoke a passport or travel document on the application of the holder thereof.

    Thereafter, there may be no legal bar for entertaining a fresh application for new passport and proper enquiry by the authority under the provisions mentioned hereinabove.

    7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr. Jitendra Malkan, submitted, on instructions, that, in any case, where part or page of the passport which is laminated is to be corrected or modified, a new passport has to be issued because of impossibility of correcting the entry made on the laminated sheet of the passport.

    8. Therefore, having regard to the view already taken by this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 24.2.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 2716 of 2006 and allied mattes and in view of the legal provisions discussed hereinabove, the petitions are disposed with the following directions and suggestions:

    (1) The petitioners herein and such other applicants may make appropriate application in Form No. 1 or Form No. 2, as the case may be, for change or correction in the passport;

    (2) Such application shall be accepted and entertained by the respondent and, after enquiry and following the procedure prescribed in the Passports Act, 1967 and the Rules made thereunder, decision thereon shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967;

    (3) In case the authority decides not to issue the passport pursuant to the application, it shall record its reasons and, on demand, furnish a copy thereof to the applicant except in exceptional circumstances contemplated in Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967;

    (4) Then it will be open for the applicant concerned to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

    (5) The above process in each such application should be completed by the Passport Issuing Authority within a reasonable time. The Authority should ideally also arrange to officially provide reasonable assistance and guidance to the applicant concerned so as to obviate any unauthorised and improper advice being sought by or given to the unwary or confused applicants.

    Rule is made absolute in each petition in the above terms with no order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Gunvantiben Dayarambhai Patel And Ors. v. Union Of India
    (Mar 23, 2006)