Can Passport Officer Insist On Father's Consent Where Mother Holds Exclusive Custody Of Minor: Jammu & Kashmir High Court To Examine
The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has recently issued notice to the Union of India through Regional passport office on a plea raising question as to whether the Regional Passport Officer can insist on mentioning father's name on the passport of a minor, particularly when the mother of the minor applicant is legally divorced and enjoys exclusive custody of the applicant...
The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has recently issued notice to the Union of India through Regional passport office on a plea raising question as to whether the Regional Passport Officer can insist on mentioning father's name on the passport of a minor, particularly when the mother of the minor applicant is legally divorced and enjoys exclusive custody of the applicant child.
After elaborately hearing the counsel for the petitioner a bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar issued notice in the matter and granted 4 weeks time to the respondents to file their responses.
In her plea the Petitioner mother has submitted that she had applied for the passport of her Minor son (Petitioner No 2) before the Regional Passport Office, Jammu on June 2nd 2022 and despite the passage of nine months the authority is yet to act on the said application.
The petitioner contends that even though she is a divorced woman and has exclusive custody of Petitioner No. 2, the Regional Passport Officer, Jammu has insisted that both the parents are required to be present in his office in order to process the application for issuance of passport.
The petitioner has questioned the insistence on the part of the Regional Passport Officer Jammu on the ground that the father’s name is not required under any law to be mandatorily mentioned on the passport, and that the Ministry of External Affairs has announced guidelines which specifically clarify that mentioning of father’s name is not mandatory.
The petitioner had further averred that since the father of Petitioner No. 2 himself has granted unconditional consent by way of emails dated July 18th 2022 and July 19th 2022, the stand of the passport issuing authority is unsubstantial.
Pressing her plea for issuance of fresh passport the petitioner has also invited the attention of the court to the guidelines of the Ministry of External Affairs Dated December 23, 2016 regarding new Passport Rules in terms of which it has been clearly specified,
"the online passport application form requires the applicant to provide the name of father or mother or legal guardian, i.e., only one parent and not both. This would enable single parents to apply for passports for their children and to also issue passports where the name of either the father or the mother is not required to be printed at the request of the applicant”.
In view of the guidelines the petitioner has pleaded that rules do not require that the name of both the parents, i.e., the mother as also the father, is to be mandatorily mentioned in passport forms. It is respectfully submitted that the name of the mother is, and ought to be sufficient to be mentioned in the passport of the applicant.
Substantiating her plea, the petitioner mother has also referred to a Judgement of the Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the matter of Ishman v. Regional Passport Office, in terms of which the court has directed issuance of a passport to an applicant without mentioning her father's name.
Praying for directions upon the Respondents to issue fresh passport in favour of the Petitioner No. 2, the petitioner also sought a writ of Mandamus Commanding the Respondents not to insist on mentioning the father’s name on the passport of the Petitioner No. 2.
The matter has been posted again on April 17,2023.
Case Title: Nidhi Gupta and Anr Vs Union of India
Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Advocate.