Sanchayita Lahkar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Bench of Justice Harsh Bunger held that inadvertent mention of a previous spouse’s name in a passport application does not amount to suppression of material information or furnishing false particulars under the Passports Act, 1967. The Court ruled that revocation of a passport on such grounds was legally unsustainable and directed issuance of a new passport with corrected particulars.

The petitioner was married to Dr. Siddharth Narula in the year 2000 and a daughter was born from the wedlock. She initially held a passport bearing No. P514726. In 2005, she obtained another passport (No. F1754413) recording the name of her spouse as Dr. Siddharth Narula. The marriage was later dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 2 April 2011 passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Full Recovery Under Promissory Note | Cash Component Cannot Be Disregarded for Lack of Documentary Proof

In May 2015, the petitioner applied for re-issuance of her passport through a travel agent. She was issued Passport No. M9280984, in which the spouse’s name continued to be recorded as Siddharth Narula, despite the divorce in 2011. The petitioner subsequently remarried Neeraj Kumar on 19 November 2023. Thereafter, she submitted applications dated 12 March 2024 and 18 December 2024 to the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, seeking correction of her spouse’s name from “Siddharth Narula” to “Neeraj Kumar.”

Meanwhile, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner by her second husband Neeraj Kumar through the Superintendent, NRI Affairs, Government of Punjab, alleging that she had obtained a passport in 2015 by suppressing her divorce. On the basis of this complaint, the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh, issued a show cause notice dated 21 January 2025 requiring her to explain why action should not be taken for suppression of material facts regarding marital status.

The petitioner responded with a detailed self-declaration, acknowledging that the 2015 passport had mistakenly retained the name of her divorced husband due to processing through an unknown travel agent. She expressed regret, affirmed that the error was inadvertent, and sought correction. She also explained that she had remarried and requested issuance of a corrected passport bearing the name of her new spouse.

Notwithstanding this explanation, the Regional Passport Office revoked her passport on 29 January 2025 under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, citing suppression and misrepresentation of material facts. The petitioner’s appeal before the Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi, was dismissed on 27 March 2025. The appellate authority concluded that since the passport had been obtained by suppression, it could not be reused, though liberty was given to apply afresh.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the revocation and the appellate order.

The Court recorded: “The question before this Court is whether mentioning of petitioner’s previous husband’s name, as against the column ‘name of spouse’ in the passport application, amounts to suppression of material information or giving wrong information so as to attract Section 10(3)(b) of the 1967 Act and/or Section 12(1)(b) of the 1967 Act?”

It noted: “A perusal of Section 10(3)(b) of 1967 Act would show 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 1967 Act.”

The Court observed: “Still further, a bare reading of Section 10(3)(b) and Section 12(1)(b) of the 1967 Act reflects that the suppression of material information or giving wrong/false information has to be ‘with a view to obtain the passport’.”

The Court reasoned: “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 1967 Act.”

After examining Section 6 of the Act, the Court held: “Evidently, in sub-section (2) of section 6 of 1967 Act, there is no mention as regards suppression or wrong information as regards ‘marital status of an applicant’.”

The Court further noted: “A perusal of above extracted chart would show that inadvertent suppression of information regarding marital status/name of spouse etc. is considered as minor offence for which a penalty of Rs.500/- is leviable.”

Citing the Andhra Pradesh case, the Court held: “Whether the educational qualification of the accused is intermediate or whether he is married or not, makes no difference for the passport authorities to issue passport.”

Applying this reasoning, the Court observed: “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.”

Referring to the petitioner’s case, the Court recorded: “The reasoning rendered by the petitioner is that the name of Siddharth Narula was mentioned in the passport application by mistake as she had applied for renewal/reissuance of passport through an unknown travel agent.” The Court found the explanation “plausible; especially when 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.”

Significantly, the Court noted the statement of the petitioner’s former husband, who declared: “She has never misused this status at any point, nor has she sought any benefit from this oversight… I bear no grievance if this bona fide oversight is rectified.”

The Court concluded: “Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in law and fact in exercising their jurisdiction by passing the impugned order.”

“Therefore, both the aforesaid orders i.e. order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-9), are set aside.”

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court | Magistrates Empowered to Grant Bail Even If Earlier Plea Rejected by HC, When Closure Report Is Filed | Criminal History Only a Factor, Not a Bar Under S.480 BNSS

“It is noticeable that the petitioner’s passport No.M9280984 stands expired on 25.05.2025, accordingly, respondents are directed to issue a new passport to her with correct particulars, which may be supplied by the petitioner to the concerned Passport authority.”

“Let the fresh passport be issued to the petitioner with correct particulars within a period of three weeks from the date the petitioner supplies the required particulars to the Passport authorities.”

The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, with all pending applications also closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Shreyansi Verma, Central Government Counsel

Case Title: Navpreet Kaur v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:111919
Case Number: CWP-10890-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger