Manisha vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 815/2025 and CM APPL. 16584/2026
Date of Decision: 29.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
MANISHA
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium and Mr.
Simarpal Singh Sawhney, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Farman Ali CGSC, Ms. Usha
Jamnal, Advocates for UOI.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
a) Issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or any other writ, order
or direction quashing the order(s) dated 06.12.2024 passed by the
Respondent No. 2 and order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the
Respondent No. 3.
b) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction to the Respondents declaring the Petitioner an Indian
Citizen by virtue of Section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955,
thereby, entitled to hold Indian Passport.
c) Issue an appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction to the respondents to issue necessary orders/directions
for issuance of passport to the Petitioner in view of the facts above.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
11:58:09
W.P.(C) 815/2025 Page 1 of 5

d) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

2. The petition assails the orders dated 20.11.2023 and 06.12.2024
20.11.2023 (hereinafter “Impugned Orders” ) whereby, the petitioner’s
application for issuance of Indian Passport in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of
Citizenship Act, 1955 was rejected and the said order was affirmed by the
Appellate Authority.
3. The Impugned Order dated 06.12.2024 passed by Appellate Authority
observed that, while the petitioner’s birth certificate and identity documents,
including electoral cards, PAN cards and Aadhaar cards of her parents’
documents, were found to exist in the records of the issuing authorities,
there was no contemporaneous documentary evidence to establish that either
of the petitioner’s parents was an Indian citizen at the time of her birth. The
said conclusion premised on certain inputs received from Central Agencies
indicating petitioner’s father as a Nepali citizen. The material portion of the
Impugned Order dated 06.12.2024 is extracted as under:
18(iii) Appellant submitted her Birth Certificate No. 2398 registered with
North Delhi Municipal Corporation. This Birth Certificate was registered on
19.07.1995 and it bears the Date of Birth of the appellant as 14.07.1995 and
place of birth as LNJP Hospital, Delhi. This document is found to be in records
of MCD.


(iv) Appellant submitted copy of her and her parents' Electoral Card, PAN
Card and Aadhar Card to support her claim for Indian citizenship of her
parents. These documents are confirmed to be in the records of the Issuing
Authority.
xxxxx

(vii) Date of birth of her mother and father is 15.01.1966 and 08.01.1959
respectively as per PAN Card issued to them. However, appellant could not
submit any contemporaneous document to prove that either of her parents was
born in India citing the long back period dating back to 1960s.

(viii) Central Security Agencies reported that the appellant's father is a Nepali
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
11:58:09
W.P.(C) 815/2025 Page 2 of 5

citizen who was born in Nepal. This fact was admitted by the appellant herself.
As regards the appellant's mother, appellant could not provide any
documentary evidence to prove that her mother is an Indian citizen, who was
born in India in the year 1966. Agencies reported that proof of birth in r/o
appellant's mother i.e. Smt. Goma could not be obtained from either School,
Hospital or MCD records.


4. A perusal of the same would indicate that the petitioner’s birth is duly
registered with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (now Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, hereinafter “MCD” ). The birth certificate issued on
19.07.1995 records the petitioner’s date of birth as 14.07.1995 and place of
birth as Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital, Delhi, and the same
stands verified to be part of the official records maintained by the issuing
authority. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and her parents possess
identity documents, including Electoral Cards, PAN Cards and Aadhaar
Cards, which have been confirmed by the respective issuing authorities.
5. Notwithstanding the existence and verification of these documents,
the Impugned Order proceeded on the following footings (i) No
contemporaneous documentary evidence. (ii) Inputs from certain Central
Agencies suggesting petitioner’s father a Nepali National. (iii) No verifiable
record to establish that petitioner’s mother was born in India.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that her maternal grandfather i.e. late Sh.
Lok Bahadur Chhetri, who was a Gorkha Nepali Origin, came to India and
th
joined Assam Rifles 14 Battalion in 1959 and in the year 1966, he left the
job and shifted to Delhi. Further on 15.01.1966, her mother was born to her
maternal grandfather in Delhi. Even the Directorate General of Assam
Rifles, vide letter dated 25.08.2023 confirmed the Passport Officer about the
enrolment of the petitioner’s maternal grandfather vide Ex. No. 140559-Rfn
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
11:58:09
W.P.(C) 815/2025 Page 3 of 5

in 14 Assam Rifles.
7. The petitioner contends that the name of the petitioner’s mother in the
record might not have been necessary, therefore, that might be the reason, it
was not duly recorded. However, the same would have no bearing for the
purpose of adjudication of the instance case.
8. What, however, emerges as the principal basis for denial of the
petitioner’s claim is the reliance placed by the respondent authorities upon
inputs received from Central Agencies. A careful scrutiny of the impugned
orders would indicate that the conclusions drawn, therein, are predicated
upon alleged admissions attributed to the petitioner, without the underlying
material, including the complete statement or context in which such
statements were made. In the absence of the foundational material, the
reliance placed on such inputs, which have neither been disclosed in entirety
nor subjected to any form of verification or scrutiny, renders the decision-
making process susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness and lack of
procedural fairness.
9. It is well settled that any administrative determination having civil
consequences must be founded on cogent material and must withstand the
test of reasonableness and fairness. In the present case, the findings
regarding the nationality of the petitioner’s father appear to have been
recorded solely on the basis of an alleged response to a questionnaire, the
contents and context, whereof, have not been placed before this Court. In the
absence of such material particulars, it would be impermissible to draw
adverse inferences against the petitioner. The undisputed position that the
petitioner was born in India, coupled with the fact that identity documents of
the petitioner and her parents stand verified by the issuing authorities,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
11:58:09
W.P.(C) 815/2025 Page 4 of 5

cannot be brushed aside merely on the basis of inconclusive inputs. Under
these circumstances, there should not be any impediment for grant of
passport to the petitioner.
10. The input of the Central Agencies also does not appear to be
determinative in nature, as the same is stated to be based only on a
questionnaire put forth to the petitioner and lacks independent corroboration.
11. For these reasons, the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Appellate
Authority stands set aside.

12. Let the Passport Authority to reconsider the petitioner’s application in
accordance with extant rules and to pass a fresh order.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2026
Aks/ss


Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.05.2026
11:58:09
W.P.(C) 815/2025 Page 5 of 5