Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., directed the Regional Passport Officer, Cochin, to consider an application for re-issue of a passport with corrected date of birth without insisting on prior correction of service records. The Court held that such insistence was contrary to statutory provisions and that requiring the petitioner to fulfil an impossible condition would be legally untenable. The writ petition was allowed, and a direction was issued for compliance within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

The petitioner filed a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Cochin, to process her application for re-issue of passport incorporating the correct date of birth as reflected in her official birth certificate.

Also Read: Supreme Court Defines Scope Of Section 11 SARFAESI | Disputes Between Banks Must Go To Arbitration | Mandates That Section 11 Is Mandatory And Does Not Require Prior Arbitration Agreement

The petitioner, aged 51, submitted that her date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the service records, but was correctly reflected in her birth certificate (Exhibit P1) and Aadhaar card (Exhibit P1(a)). She had also submitted supporting documents, including copies of her SSLC book (Exhibit P2), service details from the SPARK database (Exhibit P3), and her existing passport (Exhibit P4).

Despite these documents, the respondents declined to process her request, citing that her service records must first be corrected before any change could be made to the passport. The petitioner contended that such correction was no longer possible due to a statutory bar imposed by Government Order G.O.(P) No. 45/91/P&ARD dated 30.12.1991 (Exhibit P11). This order stipulates a five-year limitation from the date of entry into service for applying for any correction in the date of birth, with a further one-year window from the issuance of the order itself for those already in service.

The petitioner argued that she had exceeded the permissible period and that amendment of her service records was statutorily prohibited. Consequently, she submitted that the insistence on such correction was both impractical and contrary to the law.

Relying on The Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (Exhibit P15), the petitioner contended that only an affidavit explaining the reason for the change was required for date of birth correction, and that no additional precondition—such as correction of service records—was prescribed under the statutory framework.

She further relied on a decision in W.P.(C) No. 894/2025, in which the High Court had previously directed the passport authority to consider a similar application without requiring rectification in service records.

The petitioner also submitted a compendium of related documents, including her application form for re-issue of passport (Exhibit P16), a letter of request (Exhibit P9), the communication received from the passport office rejecting her request (Exhibit P10), and proof of her marriage and spousal details (Exhibits P5–P7).

The respondent authorities, through counsel, maintained their stance and cited internal guidelines and procedural instructions that allegedly mandated such corrections in service records before updating the passport.

The Court examined the facts and statutory framework and stated that “a correction of service records in the case of the petitioner is an impossibility at this distance of time”, referring to the government order dated 30 December 1991.

It referred to judicial principles regarding impossibility of performance, recording that the situation fell under legal doctrines such as “lex non cogit ad impossibilia” (the law does not compel a person to do the impossible), “impossibilium nulla obligatio est” (no obligation exists in the face of impossibility), and “impotentia excusat legem”, explaining that these principles applied when compliance with a statutory requirement became practically impossible due to circumstances beyond control.

The Court cited State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another [(2011) 7 SCC 639] and Sulfikar vs. The Kerala State Election Commission (MANU/KE/2350/2024), and remarked: “where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over it, there the law will, in general, excuse him.”

The judgment further noted that even in instances involving statutory formalities, the impossibility of performance arising from external circumstances should be treated as a valid excuse. The Court stated that “insistence on a condition that is incapable of performance cannot be accepted” and recognised that the inability to amend service records arose from a statutory limitation rather than any fault or inaction on the petitioner’s part.

It also considered the validity of the procedural instructions relied upon by the passport authority, stating: “the compendium of Instructions/Guidelines relating to the issue of Passports in India/Abroad cannot go against the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 or the Rules thereon or any other instrument having the force of law.”

The Court found that neither the Passports Act, 1967, nor the Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2025, mandated the correction of service records as a prerequisite for amending the date of birth in a passport for a government employee. It held that such an administrative requirement could not override statutory provisions.

As the law permitted submission of an affidavit explaining the reason for the correction, and no other statutory bar existed, the Court concluded that the petitioner's application should be considered on its merits without imposing an impossible condition.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Quashes FACT's Rejection of Hepatitis B Patient | Denial of Employment Solely on Account of Disease Is Illegal and Unjustifiable | Directs Appointment Within One Month

The Court directed that the petitioner must succeed and issued an instruction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P16 application without requiring the petitioner to correct her service records, and to do so in accordance with the affidavit submitted under Ext.P15 Rules.

The Court further directed that this action be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: K.R. Ganesh, Advocate; Elvin Peter P.J. (Senior Advocate); Ahsana E., Advocate; Adarsh Babu C.S., Advocate

For the Respondents: C. Dinesh, Central Government Counsel

Case Title: Josna Raphael Poovathingal v. Union of India and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:36087

Case Number: WP(C) No. 17195 of 2025

Bench: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.

[Read/Download order]