Full Judgment Text
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 7170/2016
VIBHAS ARORA ..... Petitioner
versus
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nukul Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Tushar Gupta and Ms.
S. Kashyap, Advocates
For the Respondents : Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Adv.
CORAM:-
HON‟BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to issue/renew
the passport of the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for a passport after the
divorce of his parents. It is contended that the ground for divorce was desertion
and neglect by the father.
2. On 27.06.2007, first passport was issued to the petitioner. In the Column of
biological father, no name is mentioned. The passport mentions “NIL”. The
passport was valid upto 26.06.2017.
3. The petitioner has taken admission in the course of Master of Information
W.P.(C) No.7170/2016 Page 1 of 7
Systems in Australia. The session commenced on 27.07.2015 and ends on
30.06.2017. Since the passport of the petitioner originally issued expires before the
conclusion of the said course, the petitioner applied for renewal /issuance of a
fresh passport. In the application form submitted for renewal of the passport, the
petitioner has once again, in the column of father‟s name, entered “NIL”. Instead
of issuing a fresh passport, the respondent cancelled the earlier passport and have
refused to issue a fresh passport on the ground that it is mandatory to mention the
biological father in the family details.
4. Two contentions are raised by the respondent in the affidavit filed. Firstly,
it is contended that the software of the respondent does not permit acceptance of
an application without disclosing the father‟s name and secondly in terms of
Chapter 8, Clause IV (4.5) of the Passport Manual, it is mandatory to mention the
name of both the parents in passport. It is contended that the deletion of the
parents‟ name from the passport consequent to divorce is not permissible since the
decree of divorce results in severance of the status of husband – wife but does not
severe the relationship between the child and parents unless the parents has legally
disowned the child.
5. The contentions raised by the respondent have been dealt with by a
coordinate bench of this Court vide Judgement dated 17.05.2016 in WP(C)
155/2016 titled “ Shalu Nigam & Anr. Vs. The Regional Passport Officer &
Anr .”
6. In my view the judgment squarely covers the case of the petitioner.
Identical contentions, as are being raised in the counter affidavit were raised in
that petition. Learned Judge in the said judgment has held as under: -
"11. This Court is of the opinion that the respondents can insist
upon the name of the biological father in the Passport only if
W.P.(C) No.7170/2016 Page 2 of 7
it is a requirement in law, like standing instructions, manuals
etc. In the absence of any provision making it mandatory to
mention the name of one's biological father in the Passport,
the respondents cannot insist upon the same.
12. In the present case, there is no legal requirement for insisting
upon the father's name. Respondents' reliance on Clause 4.5
of Chapter 8 of Passport Manual 2010 is misplaced as the said
Chapter deals with "change in entries in passport." It does not
pertain to entries to be made in the first instance.
Consequently, Clause 4.5 of Chapter 8 is not applicable to the
present case.
13. In fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ishmaan Vs.
Regional Passport Office, W.P.(C) 5100/2010 decided on
21st February, 2011 directed issuance of a passport to an
applicant without mentioning her father's name on the ground
that the instructions issued by the respondent itself permitted
mentioning of only mother's name in the passport. The
relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"4. The Respondents have themselves enclosed another
set of instructions in a reference letter (Annexure R-2)
issued on 21st April 1999. Clause 3.2(a) thereof reads
as under:-
"3.2 Child born out of wedlock or child having
single parent (Reference letter No.
V.I/402/2/1/97 dated 21.4.1999).
a) Cases where: (i) the mother who is an Indian
citizen, claims that the biological father had no
contact with the mother or the child after the
child's birth; or where (ii) the child's father is
either unknown (for example a child born after
a rape etc.) or (iii) has terminated the
relationship with the mother after conception.
In these cases, the PIA should obtain an
affidavit from the mother to that effect sworn
before a magistrate (Appendix 23). In these
W.P.(C) No.7170/2016 Page 3 of 7
cases, the name of the father should be left
blank and should not be entered in the passport
without his written consent. As admission by a
woman of the birth of a child out of wedlock
invites social stigma, it may be presumed that
rarely would she utter a lie in this regard.
However, to safeguard against cases of
abduction/kidnapping, the PIA should insist on
the affidavit of the mother being supported by a
birth certificate from a hospital or the Registrar
of Births and Deaths or a municipality."
5. It is plain that as far as the present case is
concerned, with the decree of mutual divorce having
been passed by the competent civil court in 2007 itself,
the case of the Petitioner would be covered under
Clause 3.2(a) of the above instructions dated 21st
April 1999.
6. The Petitioner's mother should now produce before
the Regional Passport Officer ('RPO') an affidavit
sworn by her before the Magistrate in terms of Clause
3.2(a) within a period of two weeks. The said affidavit
will also incorporate the necessary assertion that the
Petitioner's mother will inform the RPO in the event
she proposes to remarry. If such an affidavit is
furnished, then the RPO will ensure that the name of
the father in the passport of the Petitioner is left blank.
The necessary correction in the passport be made
within a further period of two weeks after the said
affidavit is furnished."
19. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that families
of single parents are on the increase due to various reasons
like unwed mothers, sex workers, surrogate mothers, rape
survivors, children abandoned by father and also children
born through IVF technology.
20. Consequently, this Court is of the view that mother's name is
W.P.(C) No.7170/2016 Page 4 of 7
sufficient in certain cases like the present one to apply for
Passport, especially as a single woman can be a natural
guardian and also a parent.
23. In any case, technology is intended to ease and facilitate
transactions and cannot be the basis for creating and defeating
anybody's legal rights. If the only impediment, in way of
granting the relief sought by the petitioners, is the software,
the same ought to be suitably modified to accept the
application of the petitioner No.2, if she is otherwise entitled
for re-issuance of the Passport.
24. The fact that the respondents had on previous two occasions,
in the year 2005 and 2011 issued Passport to petitioner No.2,
without insisting on father's name, makes it evident that the
said requirement is not a legal necessity, but only a
procedural formality, which cannot be the basis of rejecting
the petitioner No. 2's case. Consequently, it appears that
legally and factually there is no impediment in issuing the
Passport to the petitioner No.2, without mentioning her
father's name.
25. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to modify their
software and accept petitioner No.2's application and issue
her a Passport without insisting upon mentioning her father's
name. With the aforesaid direction, present petition and
application stand disposed of. This Court places on record its
appreciation for the services rendered by learned Amicus
Curiae Mr. Amit Bansal.
7. In the present case also, the petitioner was issued a passport on 27.06.2007
without mentioning of the father‟s name. This is not a case where the parents‟
name is sought to be deleted from the passport consequent to a divorce. As held in
the case of Shalu Nigam ( Supra ), reliance on Clause 4 of the Passport Manual is
misplaced. As held in the said case, there is no legal requirement for insisting
upon the father‟s name in the passport.
W.P.(C) No.7170/2016 Page 5 of 7
8. With regard to the contention of the respondent that the computer does not
accept the application form without the name of the father, it is also noticed in
Shalu Nigam ( Supra ) that the online application form requires one of the details
out of the details of the father/mother/legal guardians. If the name of one out of
three i.e. father/mother/legal guardians is sufficient for the purpose of filling of the
form then the respondent cannot contend that the computer system does not accept
the application form without the said detail.
9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's
application form has been accepted and there was no difficulty in filling
up/uploading the application form.
10. If such detail was mandatorily required to be filled in the application form,
the respondent's software would not have accepted the application form. The fact
that the form was accepted and processed establishes that such a condition is not a
software requirement.
11. The respondent have also processed the application form though refusing to
grant the renewal/issuance of fresh passport. It may also be noticed that in Shalu
Nigam ( Supra ), this court had directed the respondents to rectify their software in
case there was such impediment in making an application. Learned counsel for
the respondent has fairly conceded that the judgment in Shalu Nigam ( Supra ) was
not appealed again and has been accepted by the Respondents. However, she
contends that the software till date has not been updated.
12. In view of the above, subject to the petitioner complying with other
conditions, the respondents are directed to issue 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
W.P.(C) No.7170/2016 Page 6 of 7
name, as contended by the respondent, the respondents shall modify their
software, , as expeditiously as possible.
13. Since the petitioner has applied for the passport in the „ Tatkal Category‟.
The passport be issued within three working days. The period of three working
days has been fixed, as learned counsel for respondent submits, that in normal
circumstances a passport in Tatkal Category would be issued within three working
days.
14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
15. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 22, 2016
„rs‟
W.P.(C) No.7170/2016 Page 7 of 7