2016 (5) TMI 1587 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking reissuance of her daughter-petitioner No.2's passport without insisting upon her father's name being mentioned in the application - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that the respondents can insist upon the name of the biological father in the Passport only if it is a requirement in law, like standing instructions, manuals etc. In the absence of any provision making it mandatory to mention the name of one's biological father in the Passport, the respondents cannot insist upon the same - In the present case, there is no legal requirement for insisting upon the father's name. Respondents' reliance on Clause 4.5 of Chapter 8 of Passport Manual 2010 is misplaced as the said Chapter deals with change in entries in passport. It does not pertain to entries to be made in the first instance. Consequently, Clause 4.5 of Chapter 8 is not applicable to the present case. In fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ishmaan Vs. Regional Passport Office, 2011 (2) TMI 1611 - DELHI HIGH COURT directed issuance of a passport to an applicant without mentioning her father's name on the ground that the instructions issued by the respondent itself permitted mentioning of only mother's name in the passport. The fact that the respondents had on previous two occasions, in the year 2005 and 2011 issued Passport to petitioner No.2, without insisting on father's name, makes it evident that the said requirement is not a legal necessity, but only a procedural formality, which cannot be the basis of rejecting the petitioner No. 2's case. Consequently, it appears that legally and factually there is no impediment in issuing the Passport to the petitioner No.2, without mentioning her father's name. The respondents are directed to modify their software and accept petitioner No.2's application and issue her a Passport without insisting upon mentioning her father's name. With the aforesaid direction, present petition and application stand disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reissuance of passport without mentioning the father’s name.
2. The legal requirement of mentioning the biological father’s name in official documents.
3. The rights of a child to determine their identity.
4. The applicability of the Passport Manual and relevant legal provisions.
5. The role of technology and procedural formalities in legal rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reissuance of passport without mentioning the father’s name:
The petitioner sought the reissuance of her daughter’s passport without including the father’s name. The petitioner argued that she had raised her daughter as a single parent since birth and that the father had abdicated his responsibilities. The court noted that the respondents had previously issued passports in 2005 and 2011 without insisting on the father’s name, indicating that this requirement was not a legal necessity but a procedural formality.

2. The legal requirement of mentioning the biological father’s name in official documents:
The respondents argued that the Passport Manual required the father’s name to be included. However, the court found that there was no legal requirement for this, especially in cases where the father had abandoned the child. The court referenced previous judgments, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in ABC vs. State (NCT of Delhi), which emphasized that the welfare of the child is paramount and that an uninvolved father’s rights should not be prioritized over those of the mother or child.

3. The rights of a child to determine their identity:
The petitioner contended that insisting on mentioning the father’s name violated her daughter’s right to determine her identity. The court agreed, stating that requiring the father’s name would compel the daughter to alter her identity, which she had used since birth as the daughter of the petitioner rather than her biological father.

4. The applicability of the Passport Manual and relevant legal provisions:
The respondents relied on Clause 4.5 of Chapter 8 of the Passport Manual, which deals with changes in passport entries due to divorce. The court found this clause inapplicable as it pertains to changes in existing entries, not initial entries. The court also referenced previous judgments, including those of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the petitioner’s case.

5. The role of technology and procedural formalities in legal rights:
The respondents argued that the computerized application form required the father’s name. The court noted that technology should facilitate transactions and not create or defeat legal rights. The court directed the respondents to modify their software to accept the application without the father’s name, emphasizing that procedural formalities should not override substantive legal rights.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondents to issue the passport without insisting on the father’s name, highlighting that the requirement was a procedural formality rather than a legal necessity. The court also appreciated the services rendered by the Amicus Curiae in the case.