01Facts
The petitioner acquired British citizenship on 7 August 2025.
pp. 1–4 · ¶ 1–3, 8–9Before applying to renew her Indian passport to reflect her married name, her husband emailed the High Commission of India in London, disclosed her British citizenship, and sought guidance on the name-change procedure.
pp. 1–4 · ¶ 1–3, 8–9The petitioner applied for passport renewal on 10 October 2025 and obtained a British passport on 22 October 2025. The High Commission later revoked her Indian passport and refused a Surrender Certificate, alleging suppression of her foreign nationality; it had previously issued a Surrender Certificate on 6 November 2025. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, leading to this writ petition.
pp. 1–4 · ¶ 1–3, 8–902Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s omission to disclose her British citizenship in her passport-renewal application justified revocation of her passport and refusal of a Surrender Certificate.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7, 10–11ii.Whether the authorities exercised their statutory power fairly and after considering the relevant circumstances and material on record.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7, 9–1103Law Applied
Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 empowers the passport authority to revoke a passport where material information has been suppressed.
p. 4 · ¶ 10Because the provision uses the word “may,” the power is discretionary and must be exercised fairly, non-mechanically, and with consideration of relevant material; the applicant’s duty to disclose information candidly remains.
p. 4 · ¶ 10–11No precedent was cited.
p. 4 · ¶ 10–11Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Passports Act, 1967 Section 10
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the petitioner had acquired British citizenship before applying to renew her Indian passport. However, the contemporaneous email to the High Commission disclosed that citizenship before the renewal application, supporting the petitioner’s explanation that the renewal concerned a name change rather than an attempt to conceal her nationality.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–11The orders under challenge did not explain the circumstances in which the Surrender Certificate had first been issued or why it was later denied. The Court also noted that the renewed passport had not been used for travel or to obtain another benefit. Considering these circumstances together, the omission could have been a bona fide error rather than deliberate concealment. The statutory power therefore could not be exercised mechanically without proper consideration of the relevant material.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–1105Holding
The Court set aside the impugned appellate order and directed the respondent authorities to issue the petitioner a Surrender Certificate forthwith.
p. 4 · ¶ 12The petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.
p. 5 · ¶ 13Original Court PDF
Hina Ketan ThakrarvsUnion Of India & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
