(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue passport to the petitioner's daughter by considering her passport application in Application No.TR1065294325425 dated 04.07.2025.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by a minor girl child seeking a mandamus directing the first respondent to issue passport to the petitioner based upon her application dated 04.07.2025.

(A).Factual Background:

2. The affidavit in support of the writ petition has been filed by the mother of the minor child. As per averments in the writ affidavit, while the petitioner's mother working in Kuwait, she met Mr.Palanisamy and they had fallen love with each other and they had decided to get married when they return to India. However, without undergoing marriage, they started living together in Kuwait and they were blessed with a girl child on 02.07.2008.

3. As per averments in the affidavit, since the couple have not undergone a marriage, they found difficult to get a passport to the baby and therefore, the mother's employer arranged for a passport by incorporating the father's name as Abul Kalam Janal Mohamed and got passport to the baby mentioning the baby's name as Khadeeja. Using the said passport, the mother and the minor daughter landed in India.

4. As per the writ affidavit, the petitioner's mother married to Palanisamy in the year 2010 and they also registered their marriage. A birth certificate was issued as Vaishnavi and she was admitted to the school and she completed her 12th standard. As per affidavit, the minor child has passed NEET Examination and got admission at Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education I.N.Ulianov Chuvash State University at Russia.

5. To enable the minor child to go abroad for her studies, an application for passport was made on 04.07.2025 and it was kept in abeyance on the ground that there is another passport in the name of Khadeeja for the minor child. Even after several clarifications, the respondent officials have not come forward to issue a passport. Hence, the present writ petition.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the minor petitioner was born due to living relationship between Thilageshwari and Palanisamy at Kuwait. After landing in India, they got married and a birth certificate has also been issued in India. There is no fault on the part of the minor child in getting a passport at Kuwait by entering her name as Khadeeja and her father's name as Abul Kalam Janal Mohamed. It is not a case of impersonation. Hence, he prayed for issuance of a passport in the name of Vaishnavi incorporating the name of the father as Palanisamy to enable her to pursue her higher studies in Russia.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, by producing the fake documents, the first passport has been obtained at Kuwait as if the name of the minor child is Khadeeja and her father is Abul Kalam Janal Mohamed. He further submitted that they have also used this passport for travelling from Kuwait to India. Now the petitioner has approached the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam and obtained an order with regard to the registration of the date of birth. Based upon the said order, a birth certificate has been issued as if the minor child was born at Dharasuram in Thanjavur District.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent had further stated that the first passport that was issued on 12.11.2008 had shown the name of the minor as Khadeeja and her father's name Abul Kalam Janal Mohamed. It was shown that the child was born in Kuwait. However, the present birth certificate reveals the different name of the child, father's name and place of birth. Therefore, it is clear that the first passport was obtained by suppression of material facts, clearly attracting Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Section 12(1)(b) of the Act.

9. The learned counsel had further submitted that when the petitioner has obtained the first passport by suppression of the material information, the same is liable to be impounded and liable for criminal prosecution under Section 12(1)(b) of Passports Act, 1967. He further submitted that since the petitioner is already holding a passport and now submitted a birth certificate registered by providing wrong information, the document cannot be accepted and the passport application cannot be processed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. Heard both sides and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

11. The minor petitioner has been treated as a Indian Citizen and the first passport was issued to her by Government of India on 12.11.2008 on the ground that she is born in Kuwait. The said passport has been issued by Embassy of India at Kuwait. A perusal of the said passport further reveals that the minor was born on 02.07.2008 and her mother's name is Thilageshwari and her father's name is shown as Abul Kalam Janal Mohamed. It is not known on the basis of which document, the father's name was incorporated. No such records are forthcoming either from the petitioner or from the respondent.

12. It is not in dispute that using the above said passport, the minor child along with her mother Thilageshwari have landed in India. Thereafter, the passport has not been used. The passport had expired on 11.11.2013. No attempts were made to renew the said passport. After landing in India, the mother of the minor child namely Thilageshwari has got married to Palanisamy. As per writ averments, the child is born at Kuwait only through Thilageshwari and Palanisamy when they were in a live in relationship at Kuwait.

13. The minor child was admitted to School in India and all the School records reveal her name as Vaishnavi, born on 02.07.2008 at Dharasuram, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District. The records reveal that her mother's name as Thilageshwari. The father namely Palanisamy had filed C.M.P.No. 3297 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam for registering the birth of child as if she is born at Dharasuram. The said application was allowed on 26.05.2011 and based upon the said order, a birth certificate was issued by the Commissioner of Kumbakonam City Municipal Corporation on 15.06.2011. The birth certificate reveals the name of the minor child as Vaishnavi born on 02.07.2008 at Dharasuram and her parents are Palanisamy and Thilageshwari. This birth certificate was issued on 15.06.2011 is not in dispute.

14. The minor child after completing her Higher Secondary Course, had cleared NEET Examination and got admission to undergo MBBS Course in Russia. Only thereafter, steps were taken to get a fresh passport which has resulted in filing of the present writ petition due to the objection raised by the respondent with regard to the name, father's name and place of birth of the writ petitioner.

15. Serious objections have been raised on the side of the respondent on the ground that the birth certificate has been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court as if the petitioner is born at Dharasuram and therefore, the said document cannot be relied upon. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner as well as the name of the father of the petitioner are completely different in the birth certificate when compared to the first passport issued to the writ petitioner in the year 2008.

16. The passport of the petitioner's mother namely Thilageshwari is enclosed in the typed set of papers. It clearly reveals that her surname is Palanisamy. The respondent officials have not disputed that Thilageshwari is the mother of the writ petitioner which is also disclosed in the first passport issued to the petitioner at Kuwait. The allegations in the writ affidavit have to be considered only in the light of the passport issued to the petitioner's mother namely Thilageshwari.

17. In the affidavit, it is contended that the writ petitioner was born only to Thilageshwari and Palanisamy at Kuwait during their live in relationship and therefore, the minor child mother's employer lent his name to be recorded in the passport so as to take the child back to India. All the school records of the child in India reveal that her name as Vaishnavi and she was born on 02.07.2008 to Thilageshwari and Palanisamy. The transfer certificate and the score card for NEET Examination conducted by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of Education, Government of India reveals the same details with paternity and date of birth. In such circumstances, there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the averments in the writ affidavit that the child is born to Thilageshwari and Palanisamy at Kuwait on 02.07.2008.

18. It is no doubt true that a birth certificate has been issued in India as if the child is born in Dharasuram, Thanjavur District. As per Section 10(3) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authorities has got power to impound the travel document, if the passport or travel document was obtained by suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the passport or travel document or any other person on his behalf.

19. In the present case, the passport was issued on 12.11.2008 and it had expired on 11.11.2013. During the validity period of passport, no orders were passed either to impound or revoke the said passport. When a passport has already expired, the question of invoking Section 10(3)(b) of the Act does not arise.

20. It is further contended that an offence as contemplated under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act has been committed. A perusal of the said provision reveals that whoever knowingly furnished any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or without lawful authority alters or causes to alter the entries made in a passport shall be punishable with imprisonment.

21. In the present case, the passport was issued to the minor child when she was four months old. Therefore, no mens rea could be attributed to the minor child. The entire information should have been furnished by the parents to obtain passport. Therefore, reference made to Section 10(3)(b) or Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act would not be a legal impediment for considering a fresh application made by the minor child.

22. Even assuming that all the allegations as against obtaining of the first passport are true, there is no fault on the part of the minor. The misconduct can be attributed only to the parents. The minor child who wants to pursue her medical education abroad, cannot be denied with the passport service when there is no fault on her part. If the contentions of the respondent are accepted, it would only mean that the minor child would not be able to travel abroad throughout her life time which has not been contemplated in any one of the provisions of the Passports Act.

23. Before issuance of passport, a verification is being done by the authorities with regard to the criminal background, personal details like date of birth, parent's name etc., only to establish the identity of the individual who wishes to travel abroad, so that at any point of time, the said individual could be traced and brought back to India to face the legal consequences.

24. Unless any one of the reasons as catalogued under Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 is established, the request for issuance of passport cannot be rejected. Admittedly, none of the reasons as catalogued in Section 6 of the Passport Act have been made out.

25. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's mother namely Thilageshwari is holding a passport which is valid up to 18.11.2029 which reflects the name of her husband as Palanisamy. The said passport has been issued by the Government of Srilanka. The first passport to the minor child has been issued treating her as an Indian Citizen and the same has been issued by the Embassy of India, Kuwait. No objections have been raised with regard to the citizenship of the minor child.

(D).Conclusion

26. In view of the above said deliberations, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no legal impediment for the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of a passport. Hence, the respondent is directed to issue passport to the minor child. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

27. With the above said directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.