Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant judgment in a writ petition challenging the revocation of a passport on the ground of alleged suppression of marital status. The Court observed that while the Passport Act grants discretionary power to authorities to revoke or impound a passport for suppression of material information, such suppression must be deliberate and intended to secure a passport improperly. The Court noted that in cases of inadvertent errors, especially regarding minor details such as spouse name, the exercise of such power may not be justified. The Bench emphasized that authorities must distinguish between bona fide mistakes and deliberate misrepresentation, underlining fairness in administrative action.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, Navpreet Kaur, had previously been married to Dr. Siddharth Narula and divorced in 2011. She subsequently remarried Sh. Neeraj Kumar in 2023. In 2015, while renewing her passport through a travel agent, the spouse column was inadvertently filled with her former husband’s name, Siddharth Narula. A complaint was later lodged by her second husband alleging that she had obtained the passport with incorrect marital information. Acting on the complaint, the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, revoked her passport citing suppression of material information under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. Her subsequent appeal before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the inclusion of her previous husband’s name in the passport was a bona fide oversight and not an intentional suppression of material information to secure the passport. She argued that there was no misuse or gain arising from this inadvertent mistake. Her counsel further highlighted that the Passport Act and associated rules treat minor inadvertent suppression regarding marital status as a small offense with nominal penalty, and revocation of the passport in such circumstances was disproportionate.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents, on the other hand, relied on Section 10(3)(b) and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, contending that any suppression or wrong information, even if inadvertent, could justify revocation. The Appellate Authority maintained that the passport having been revoked could not be reused and directed the petitioner to apply afresh.
Observations of the Court:
The Court examined the statutory provisions under Sections 5, 6, 10, and 12 of the Passports Act, 1967, and emphasized that suppression or false information must be with a view to obtain a passport improperly. As the Court noted, “Here, where there is an inadvertent mistake or lapse on the part of the applicant to disclose her correct marital status in the passport application, it would not fall within the mischief of Section 10(3)(b) so as to call for impounding/revocation.”
Moreover, the Court also observed that the petitioner’s former husband, Dr. Siddharth Narula, had submitted a statement confirming that the inclusion of his name was an unintentional oversight and that no grievance arose from it. The Court highlighted that there was no evidence of misuse or any undue benefit derived by the petitioner due to this error.
The Court further explained that minor inadvertent errors, particularly regarding marital status or spouse’s name, are recognized under Schedule III of the Passport Rules as minor offenses, punishable with a nominal penalty, not revocation. The Court drew reference from Dr. Madas Venkat Goud vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011), observing that inadvertent suppression without intent does not justify revocation.
The decision of the Court:
Considering the facts, the Court held that both the revocation order passed by the Regional Passport Office and the appellate order were legally unsustainable and set them aside. The Court directed the authorities to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner with correct particulars within three weeks from the date she supplies the required details. The petition was accordingly disposed of, and all pending applications were closed.
Case Title: Navpreet Kaur Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: CWP 10890-2025 (O&M)
Coram: Justice Harsh Bunger
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Navkiran Singh
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Shreyansi Verma
Picture Source :
