- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Abida. A.P. v. Govt. Of India
Summary of Judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner applied to the respondents for issuance of a passport and submitted an extract of her S.S.L.C. book as proof of date of birth. The second respondent returned the application with an endorsement requiring production of a birth certificate. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction that the S.S.L.C. certificate be accepted as proof of date of birth and that a passport be issued on the basis of the application (Ext.P3).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Passports Act or the applicable rules oblige an applicant to produce a birth certificate issued by a Municipal Authority or the Registrar of Births and Deaths as proof of date of birth.
- Whether the second respondent was justified in returning the petitioner's application for not producing a birth certificate.
- Whether refusal to accept the S.S.L.C. extract and returning the application is impermissible because Section 6 of the Passports Act limits the grounds on which an application can be refused.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Passports Act does not require production of a birth certificate specifically as proof of date of birth.
- It was argued that an application for a passport is to be made under Section 5 of the Act and can be refused only on grounds enumerated in Section 6; since Section 6 does not list non-production of a municipal birth certificate as a ground, the respondents could not lawfully return the application for that reason.
Respondent's Arguments
- The second respondent produced a circular dated 24 October 1991 from the Ministry of External Affairs stating that applicants born on or after 26 January 1989 should produce an attested copy of the birth certificate from the Municipal Authority or the Registrar of Births and Deaths.
- Respondents relied on the Passport Information Booklet supplied with the application form, specifically Section 4, which lists a certificate issued by the Municipal Authority or District Office/Registrar of Births and Deaths among documents to be attached to the application.
- On that basis, the respondents contended that returning the petitioner's application for lack of the municipal birth certificate was justified.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the Passports Act itself does not specify the particular nature of the document to be produced as proof of date of birth. Given that statutory silence, the respondents' decision to insist on production of a birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths (or Municipal Authority) falls within their power and does not conflict with any express statutory provision.
The court concluded that because the respondents were entitled to require the municipal/registrar birth certificate, the petitioner's application—supported only by the S.S.L.C. extract—was defective. The court further analysed the petitioner's reliance on Section 6 of the Act (which lists grounds for refusal) and held that Section 6 applies only where an application otherwise satisfies all requirements for issuance of a passport. Since the petitioner's application was defective for non-production of the required birth certificate, Section 6 was not engaged and could not be invoked to challenge the respondents' action in returning the application.
The court therefore found no illegality in the second respondent's action and noted that the petitioner remained free to submit a fresh application enclosing the certificate issued by the Municipal Authority, which would be dealt with in accordance with law.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
Holding: The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the second respondent's decision to return the petitioner's passport application for failure to produce the birth certificate required by the respondents.
Implications: The direct effect is that the petitioner's original application is treated as defective and the return of that application was lawful. The petitioner may submit a fresh application enclosing the municipal/Registrar-issued birth certificate, which will be considered according to law. The opinion did not purport to create a new legal precedent beyond upholding the respondents' administrative requirement in the circumstances of this case.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner made an application to the respondents for issuance of a passport. Along with the application, in proof of her date of birth, petitioner produced an extract of her S.S.L.C Book. However, the second respondent returned her application, with the endorsement to produce birth certificate. Thereupon, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to accept S.S.L.C certificate as proof of the date of birth of the petitioner and issue passport on the basis of Ext.P3 application.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Passports Act do not oblige an applicant to produce birth certificate as proof of date of birth. It is also his contention that an application for passport is to be made as per Section 5 of the Act which can be refused only on the grounds enumerated under Section 6 of the Act. It is stated that Section 6 of the Act, does not authorise the second respondent to reject an application for passport on the ground that birth certificate issued by the Municipal Authority is not produced.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, producing circular dated 24th October 1991 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. Paragraph 2 of the circular states that applicants born on or after 26th January 1989 should produce attested copy of the birth certificate from Municipal Authorities if born within territorial jurisdiction of a Municipal Authority or otherwise, from the office of the Registrar of Births and Deaths. It is also pointed out that along with the passport application form, respondents supplied Passport Information Booklet and that, as per Section 4 thereof, among the documents to be attached tin the application form, certificate issued by the Municipal Authority or District Office, Registrar of Births and Deaths is one of the documents specified. It is therefore stated that the action of the second respondent in returning the application of the petitioner cannot be faulted.
4. Passports Act do not specify the nature of the document to be produced in proof of the date of birth of an applicant. Therefore, if the respondents have decided to insist on production of the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, such a decision is well within their power and is not contrary to any of the statutory provisions. In that view, I do not find anything illegal in the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. If that be so, necessarily, it is has to be held that application made by the petitioner was a defective one.
5. I do not also find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that passport can be refused only on the grounds enumerated under Section 6 of the Act and that since non-production of a certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths is not a ground enumerated, respondents could not have returned the application. This, in my view, applies only in case where an application made is otherwise in satisfaction of all requirements laid down for the issue of passport. The application made by the petitioner being defective, Section 6 of the Act does not come into operation at all. In that view of the matter. this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the action of the second respondent in returning the defective application made by the petitioner. Needless to say that it will be open to the petitioner to submit an application afresh enclosing the certificate issued by the Municipal Authority and in which case the same will be dealt with in accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Alert