Divorced Spouse’s Name on Passport No Reason for Revocation: P&H HC

The petitioner had applied for a re-issue of her passport to change her spouse's name from her first husband, Dr. Siddharth Narula, to her second husband, Neeraj Kumar. The facts of the case revealed that Navpreet Kaur had obtained a passport in 2015 after her divorce in 2011, but the document continued to list Dr. Narula as her spouse. After her second marriage in 2023, she sought to correct this detail. A complaint from her new husband, Neeraj Kumar, triggered an inquiry by the passport authorities.

In a show cause notice issued on January 21, 2025, the passport office asked for an explanation for the "suppression of material information in respect of her marital status". The petitioner responded with a self-declaration, admitting the mistake and attributing it to a lack of awareness and a travel agent. She also offered to pay any penalty. Despite her explanation, the passport authorities revoked her passport on January 29, 2025, under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, stating that the passport was obtained through "suppression/wrong information". She then filed an appeal against revocation before the Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi, who, by an order dated March 27, 2025, rejected it.

The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 10(3)(b) and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, which deal with the revocation of passports obtained through the suppression of material information.

Court considered the question as to "whether mentioning of petitioner's previous husband's name, as against the column 'name of spouse' in the passport application, amounted 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?"

Justice Bunger meticulously analysed the provisions, noting that the power under Section 10(3)(b) is "discretionary in nature as the term employed therein is 'may'". Court reasoned that for an error to be considered "material," it must be of a nature that, if disclosed correctly, would have led the passport authority to refuse the passport under Section 6 of the Act.

Court found that Section 6(2) of the Act, which lists the grounds for refusing a passport, does not include "suppression or wrong information as regards 'marital status of an applicant'". Court stated, "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'".

Court referenced Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980, which classifies "minor suppressions of information regarding marital status/name of spouse, etc., inadvertently" as a minor offense punishable by a fine of Rs. 500. This provision, the court observed, indicates that such an error is not considered a serious offense meriting passport revocation.

Court also cited a previous judgment, Dr. Madas Venkat Goud vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which similarly held that false information that makes "no difference for the passport authorities to issue passport" is not an offense with a "view to obtain a passport".

Conclusively, the High Court held, "I am of the considered view that the applicant for passport or anyone on his/her behalf is required to give/disclose correct information, as is sought in the passport application. However, where there is an inadvertent mistake or lapse on the part of the applicant... 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".

The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of the passport authorities were set aside. Court also directed the authorities to issue a new passport to the petitioner with correct particulars.