Passport Can't Be Revoked Over Inadvertent Mistake In Disclosing Marital Status/ Mentioning Name Of Ex-Husband: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an inadvertent mistake in mentioning marital status or a spouse's name in a passport application does not, by itself, justify impounding or revoking the passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.

It clarified that such unintentional errors or lapses—whether by the applicant or someone filling the form on their behalf—do not amount to "mischief" under the law and cannot attract penalty of impounding of the passport.

Justice Harsh Bunger said,

"where there is an inadvertent mistake or lapse on the part of the applicant or anyone on his/her behalf to disclose his/her correct marital status in the passport application or wrong name of the spouse has been mentioned in passport application due to some oversight, the same would not fall within the mischief of Section 10 (3) (b) of the 1967 Act; so as to call for any impounding/revocation of passport under Section 10 (3) (b) of the 1967 Act."

Briefly put, the petitioner was earlier married to Siddharth Narula and they got divorced in the year, 2011. In the 2015, when the petitioner applied for renewal of the passport through some travel agent, the column of spouse name was mistakenly filled as `Siddharth Narula'. 

Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a fresh passport with spouse name `Siddharth Narula'. Thereafter, the petitioner got remarried to Sh. Neeraj Kumar in the year-2023 and on account of some matrimonial issue, Neeraj Kumar submitted a complaint against the petitioner to the passport authorities stating that she had obtained her passport by mentioning spouse name as `Siddharth Narula'.

On that basis, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and her passport was revoked under Section 10(3)(b) of the 1967 Act.

Petitioner claimed that the name of Siddharth Narula was mentioned in the passport application by mistake as she had applied for renewal of passport through an unknown travel agent.

After hearing the submissions, the Court opined that there is no material on record that the petitioner has either misused or gained any undue benefit on account of mentioning name of the previous spouse in the passport application; more so, when her previous husband has also submitted a statement clarifying that the mention of his name in the 2015 passport of the petitioner, was only a bona fide oversight.

Perusing Section 10 (3) (b) of the Passport Act, the Court said that the power vested in the passport authority to impound or revoke a passport or a travel document, is discretionary in nature as the term employed therein is “may”. Further, while exercising the said power, the passport authority is obligated to record a brief statement of reasons for making such order, as enjoined upon him in terms of Section 10 (5) of the  Act.

Justice Bunger highlighted that, bare reading of Section 10(3)(b) and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act reflects that the suppression of material information or giving wrong/false information has to be 'with a view to obtain the passport'.

The bench opined that the information which is suppressed or which is wrongly/falsely given; must be such that had that information been correctly disclosed, in that eventuality the passport authority would have refused the issuance of passport to such applicant in terms of Section 5(2)(c) of the Act.

It further pointed that Appellate authority has not negated the reasoning tendered by the petitioner; rather the Appellate authority has merely mentioned that since the petitioner's passport has been revoked by the Passport Officer, the same cannot be re-used for travel; therefore, there is no occasion to review the decision of the Passport Officer.

In fact, the Appellate authority has observed that keeping in view the petitioner's occupational needs, she is granted liberty to apply afresh for the passport, which shall be processed by the Passport Officer on the basis of the documents submitted, subject to clear verification report, including any additional verification, if so required, by the Police or by other authorities regarding the authenticity of the documents, it added.

In the light of the above, the Court set aside the orders whereby petitioner's passport was impounded and directed the authorities to issue a new passport to her with correct particulars.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shreyansi Verma, Central Government Counsel for the respondent

Title: NAVPREET KAUR v. UOI & Ors

Click here to read/download the order