MOHAMMAD FAZLI ILLAHI TH.HIS FATHER vs UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS) AND ANOTHER

Regular List
Serial 1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR








WP (C) 853/2026
CM (2211/2026)
Mohammad Fazli Illahi through his father
… Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tasaduk Hussain Reshi, Advocate
Vs.
Union of India and another
… Respondents
Through: Ms. Yasmeen Jan, Adv. Vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

O R D E R
02.09.2026

1. The petitioner, who is a minor, is represented by his father before
this Court in the present writ petition. The short grievance
projected in the petition is that the petitioner is in dire need of a
fresh passport reflecting his correct date of birth, but the
respondents are not issuing the same without assigning any
reason.
2. It is submitted that the present petition involves urgency, as the
petitioner has qualified the NEET 2025 and has to pursue MBBS
studies abroad, for which a valid passport reflecting his correct
date of birth is an indispensable requirement.
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 1 of 11

3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that, at the initial stage
of his schooling, due to an inadvertent error, his date of birth was
recorded as 12.07.2004 instead of 25.05.2008. Consequently,
when a passport bearing No. K5584737 was issued to the
petitioner on 07.08.2012, it also reflected the same incorrect date
of birth. Later, in 2018, upon discovering the said error, the
petitioner approached the Zonal Education Officer, Kakapora,
Pulwama, seeking rectification thereof. After due verification and
completion of the requisite formalities, the petitioner’s correct
date of birth, i.e. 25.05.2008, was duly recorded in the official
school records.
4. It is stated that the petitioner has since continued his education
and successfully completed his Secondary and Higher Secondary
Examinations during 2023-2025, during which period all his
academic records reflect his correct date of birth as 25.05.2008.
The same date of birth is also reflected in the petitioner’s Aadhaar
Card. The competent authority under the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act has also issued a Birth Certificate dated
21.01.2026 in favour of the petitioner, certifying his date of birth
as 25.05.2008.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for a fresh passport and,
despite submitting all valid and legally acceptable documents, the
respondents, while issuing Passport No. C5538808 dated
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 2 of 11

29.11.2024, erroneously and mechanically retained the incorrect
date of birth, i.e. 12.07.2004, without application of mind.
Against this, the petitioner submitted detailed representations
dated 18.10.2024 and 05.01.2026, requesting correction/re-
issuance of the passport in accordance with his matriculation
certificate and Birth Certificate. However, the respondents failed
to act upon the same and did not assign any reasons therefor.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to arbitrary
and inconsistent directions by the respondents, who at times
advised him to apply for a fresh passport and, at other times,
asked him to apply for re-issuance thereof, thereby exposing him
to undue harassment and administrative uncertainty. The
petitioner also submitted an online application on 27.01.2026.
7. The respondents have filed their objections wherein it is pleaded
that the writ petition has been filed without any lawful
justification. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained a passport
in 2011 by submitting valid proof of date of birth viz. a copy of
the Birth Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths,
Pulwama. It is submitted that the passport was issued to the
petitioner recording the same date of birth as was recorded in the
said certificate. It is further submitted that after the petitioner
applied for re-issuance of the passport in 2024, he was issued a
fresh passport bearing No. C5538808 dated 29.11.2024 valid up
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 3 of 11

to 28.11.2034, wherein his date of birth was again reflected as
12.07.2004 as per his earlier Birth Certificate. It is submitted that
neither the petitioner nor his father approached the respondents
during the currency of the earlier passport for rectification of his
date of birth therein. It is pleaded that seeking a change in the date
of birth at this stage appears unjustified and mala fide . It is further
submitted that the petitioner has sought a change in his date of
birth in the passport after having retained the earlier passport for
more than ten years.
8. The petitioner has controverted the objections of the respondents
in his rejoinder, wherein it is submitted that he submitted detailed
representations to the Regional Passport Officer on 18.10.2024
and 05.01.2026, enclosing the corrected documents. It is further
submitted that a fresh online application was submitted by the
petitioner on 27.01.2026. It is submitted that the inaction on the
part of the respondents compelled the petitioner to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court through the present
writ petition.
9. Controverting the argument of the respondents that no correction
was sought by the petitioner for over a decade, it is submitted by
the petitioner that when the first passport was issued, the
petitioner was only four years of age and, therefore, a minor could
not have discovered or rectified a clerical error made by the
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 4 of 11

school authorities at the time of admission. It is submitted that the
error was discovered only in 2018, whereupon the ZEO,
Kakapora, was immediately approached and the school records
were corrected after completion of the requisite formalities.
10. It is contended that the respondents have relied upon Birth
Certificate bearing No. 00020 dated 06.04.2011, which reliance
is not legally sustainable as the said certificate itself bears the
handwritten endorsement “as per school record”, which
demonstrates that it was mechanically prepared on the basis of
the same erroneous school admission record that was
subsequently corrected by the Zonal Education Officer in 2018.
The said certificate has expressly been cancelled by the Chief
Medical Officer, Pulwama, vide order dated 21.07.2026. After
examining the corrected records of the Jammu and Kashmir
Board of School Education and the fresh Birth Certificate issued
by the Block Development Officer, Kakapora, the Chief Medical
Officer has officially recognized the petitioner’s correct date of
birth as 25.05.2008 and cancelled the Birth Certificate issued in
the year 2011.
11. It is further submitted that the entire defence of the respondents
rests upon a document which has since been cancelled and has no
subsisting legal effect and thus the respondents cannot perpetuate
an erroneous date of birth. It is submitted that the petitioner has
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 5 of 11

produced an unbroken chain of consistent documentary evidence,
all recording his date of birth as 25.05.2008, which include his
10th, 11th and 12th standard certificates issued by the Jammu and
Kashmir Board of School Education. It is reiterated that the Birth
Certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Kakapora,
under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, records his
date of birth as 25.05.2008 and consequently the Chief Medical
Officer, Pulwama, has cancelled the old Birth Certificate of 2011
and officially recognized 25.05.2008 as the petitioner’s correct
date of birth.
12. It is pleaded that despite being in possession of the petitioner’s
representations and the corrected documentary records, the
Regional Passport Officer while issuing Passport No. C5538808
dated 29.11.2024 has retained the incorrect date of birth of the
petitioner as 12.07.2004. This was not merely a case of inaction
but amounted to the active perpetuation of a known clerical error
without due application of mind. Such conduct is arbitrary and
unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
and adversely affects the petitioner’s right to travel abroad for the
purpose of pursuing his education, protected under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
13. It is further pleaded that subsequent to the filing of the present
petition, the petitioner has secured admission to the International
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 6 of 11

Higher School of Medicine, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, for the
Doctor of Medicine (MD) programme for the academic session
2026–27. The said University has recorded the petitioner’s date
of birth as 25.05.2008, in conformity with his academic and other
valid documentary records. Thus, if the petitioner is not issued a
fresh passport recording his correct date of birth, the petitioner
faces the imminent risk of losing his medical seat and,
consequently, an entire academic year.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. The controversy raised in the petition primarily relates to the date
of birth of the petitioner recorded in his passports. The first
passport issued to the petitioner in the year 2012 by the
respondents recorded his date of birth as 12.7.2004 based on his
birth certificate. In 2018, the petitioner became conscious of the
error that had inadvertently crept in his school records, on the
base of which his date of birth was also recorded in his birth
certificate, which in turn had become the base for recording the
incorrect date of birth in his passport, and sought the correction
of his date of birth. The correction was carried out after following
the due procedure. Now, when the petitioner again applied for
fresh passport, the respondents instead of recording his correct
date of birth in the new passport, issued the same without
changing his date of birth. Despite representations by the
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 7 of 11

petitioner, the respondents have not corrected the date of birth of
the petitioner.
16. The respondents cannot deny the correction in the date of birth of
the petitioner in view of clause 4 (iii) of the Circular No.
VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 26.11.2015 for the reason that the said
circular itself carves out an exception for the minors in whose
case corrections have been allowed beyond the timeframe of four
years.
17. The Clause 4 (iii) of the Circular No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated
26.11.2015 provides for such cases where the applicant comes to
PIA for change/correction with regard to date of birth in the
passport after a period of five years from the date of issue of
passport with alleged wrong date of birth, no such request shall
be entertained/accepted by the PIA and be rejected out rightly.
The Clause 4(iii) of the Memorandum being Circular No.
VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 26.11.2015 is reproduced as under:
“(iii) The cases where the applicant comes to PIA for change/correction
with regard to date of birth in the Passport after a period of five years
from the date of issue of passport with alleged wrong date of birth, no
such request shall be entertained/accepted by the PIA and be rejected
out rightly.
However, an exemption in this regard may be given to an applicant who
was minor at the time when passport with alleged wrong date of birth
was issued to him. As and when such an applicant after attaining the age
of majority applies for the passport with the request to change the date
of birth in the passport issued to when he was minor, the PIA irrespective
of the duration of the issuance of passport may accept his case for
consideration and if is satisfied with the claim and document(s)
submitted by the applicant, may accept his request for change of date of
birth in the passport without imposition of any penalty.”
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 8 of 11

18. In the present case, Passport Officer has failed to consider the
case of the petitioner by rejecting merely on the ground that
the birth certificate presented by the petitioner at the time of
seeking his first passport was recording his date of birth as
12.7.2004, ignoring the fact that at the time when the
petitioner applied for the second passport, he had already got
corrected his date of birth in his school records and his earlier
birth certificate had been cancelled by the competent
authority and his actual date of birth had been certified duly
by the competent authority. The Passport Officer was
required to consider their own circular in which special
concession has been made in case of minors. Further the
Passport Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the
petitioner was minor on the date when first passport was
issued to him. In view of aforementioned Circulars,
exemption should be given to the petitioner who was minor
at the time when passport with incorrect date of birth was
issued to him. As and when the petitioner applied for a fresh
passport, the PIA irrespective of the duration of the issuance
of earlier passport was required to accept his case for
consideration and if satisfied with the claim and document (s)
submitted by the petitioner should have accepted his request
for change of date in the passport.
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 9 of 11

19. This Court finds a grave injustice has been caused to the
petitioner in so far as the Passport Officer has declined to
consider the actual date of birth of the petitioner which was
duly certified by the competent authority and was also
reflected in the school records of the petitioner.
20. Declining a passport reflecting the correct date of birth of the
petitioner, would take away the inalienable right of free
movement of the petitioner particularly at a time when he has
got admitted in a foreign country to undergo a medical
degree. Needless to mention that the Supreme Court has laid
much importance on the right to movement in its judgment
“Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Anr” reported
in (1978) 1 SCC 248.
21. Considering the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances
and in view of the guidelines of the Ministry of External
Affairs contained in Circular No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated
26.11.2015, the inaction of the respondents is found to be
arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of the principles of
natural justice, and contrary to the mandate of the Passports
Act, 1967, and the rules framed thereunder, which recognize
educational certificates and Birth Certificates as valid proof
of date of birth.
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 10 of 11

22. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed by
issuing a writ of mandamus commanding upon the
respondents, particularly respondent no. 2 to consider the
application of the petitioner for issuance of fresh passport
reflecting his correct date of birth on the basis of his
Matriculation Certificate issued by the competent authority,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
23. Disposed of.
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
Srinagar
02.09.2026
N Bhat

Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes


Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
08.09.26
WP (C) 853/2026
Page 11 of 11