Passport authorities must consider minors’ date-of-birth corrections notwithstanding the five-year limitation.

The minor petitioner’s date of birth was initially recorded as 12.07.2004 in his school records and corresponding birth certificate, and the same date was reflected in his passport issued when he was a minor.

In 2018, the petitioner discovered the error and obtained correction of his date of birth in the school records to 25.05.2008 after due verification and completion of the prescribed formalities.

His subsequent academic records, Aadhaar Card and a fresh birth certificate reflected 25.05.2008.

The earlier birth certificate relied upon by the respondents was subsequently cancelled by the competent authority, which recognized 25.05.2008 as the petitioner’s correct date of birth.

Despite these documents, the respondents issued/re-issued Passport No. C5538808 dated 29.11.2024 retaining the date of birth as 12.07.2004.

The petitioner submitted representations and an online application seeking correction, but the respondents did not take effective action.

He contended that the passport was urgently required to pursue an MBBS/Doctor of Medicine programme in Kyrgyzstan after qualifying NEET 2025 and securing admission there.

The respondents opposed the petition, relying on the earlier birth certificate and the petitioner’s failure to seek correction during the currency of the previous passport.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in refusing to consider correction of the petitioner’s date of birth in his passport on the ground of delay and reliance on the earlier birth certificate.

2. Whether, having regard to the petitioner’s minority when the erroneous passport was issued and the subsequent correction of his official records, the exemption under Clause 4(iii) of Circular No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 26.11.2015 was applicable.

3. Whether the respondents’ failure to consider the petitioner’s corrected school and birth records was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of his right to travel and pursue education abroad.

The Court applied the Ministry of External Affairs Circular No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated 26.11.2015, particularly Clause 4(iii), which ordinarily bars applications for correction of the date of birth made more than five years after issuance of a passport but expressly permits an exception where the applicant was a minor when the erroneous passport was issued; upon attaining majority, such an applicant’s request may be considered on the basis of the documents produced.

The Court also relied on the Passports Act, 1967 and the rules framed thereunder, treating educational certificates and birth certificates as relevant proof of date of birth.

It invoked the principles of natural justice and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, and the right to travel under Article 21, relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

The governing principle was that the Passport Authority must consider a minor’s correction claim on its merits where competent authorities have subsequently corrected and authenticated the applicant’s official records, rather than reject it mechanically on the basis of the superseded document.

The Court found that the petitioner was a minor when the passport containing the erroneous date of birth was issued and therefore fell within the express exception in Clause 4(iii) of the 2015 Circular.

The delay could not, by itself, defeat his claim because he was incapable of discovering or rectifying the underlying clerical error during his minority.

By the time he sought correction, the school records had been duly amended, the earlier birth certificate had been cancelled, and the competent authority had issued a fresh birth certificate recording 25.05.2008; his academic records consistently supported the same date.

The Passport Officer nevertheless relied mechanically on the cancelled/earlier birth certificate and failed to examine the corrected documents or apply the minor-specific exemption under the Circular.

This failure amounted to arbitrary and unreasonable administrative action, particularly because the incorrect passport threatened the petitioner’s admission and education abroad, implicating his right to travel under Article 21.

It issued a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner’s application for issuance of a fresh passport reflecting his correct date of birth, on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate issued by the competent authority, within two weeks from receipt of the order.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.