Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2563
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Teesta Chattoraj - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 2888/2011
Decided On : 30-03-2012
For the Appellant :Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate
The main legal point established is the authority of the passport officer to refuse a passport if the information provided in the application is incorrect or insufficient, and the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for a valid adoption.
Headnote:
Passport - Adoption - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - [Passports Act, 1967, Section 6] - The court discussed the legality of the adoption deed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and its compliance with the Passports Act, 1967. The court highlighted the grounds for refusal of passports under Section 6 of the Passports Act and the authority of the passport officer to make an enquiry into the correctness of the information provided in the application for issuance of a passport.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minor, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the letter declining her passport application and a writ of mandamus to direct the issuance of a passport. The respondent refused the application citing the absence of the biological father's name and the invalidity of the adoption deed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the passport authority has the jurisdiction to refuse a passport if the information provided in the application is incorrect or insufficient, even if not covered by the grounds in the Passports Act. The court also found that the adoption deed was not valid as it did not comply with the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of the passport application based on the absence of the biological father's name and the validity of the adoption deed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the authority of the passport officer to make an enquiry into the correctness of the information provided in the passport application and the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for a valid adoption.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to resubmit the application with the correct details, including parentage.
Key Points: - The passport authority has jurisdiction to refuse a passport if information in the application is incorrect or insufficient, even if not expressly listed in Section 6(1)/(2) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 5 requires the passport authority to inquire and provide reasons if refusing or endorsing a passport (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The adoption deed may be invalid if not in compliance with HAMA provisions, specifically sections 5 and 9, and consent of the natural father is required unless he has renounced the world or other conditions apply (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The petition was dismissed with leave to resubmit correcting parentage and adoption issues; passport issuance rests on completing valid adoption and correct parentage details (!) (!) (!) . - The court rejected reliance on certain Punjab and Haryana decisions and affirmed the need for scrutiny under Section 5, not just Section 6 grounds (!) (!) (!) . - The text emphasizes that "Subject to the other provisions of this Act" in Section 6(1)/(2) allows broader scrutiny and correction of information (!) (!) .
What is the authority of the passport officer to inquire into and potentially refuse a passport based on incorrect or insufficient information under the Passports Act?
What is the validity and enforceability of an adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in the context of passport issuance?
What is the impact of non-disclosure of biological parentage and alleged invalidity of an adoption deed on a minor's right to obtain a passport?
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Ms. Teesta Chattoraj, a minor through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Rajeshwari Chattoraj. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 04.04.2011 (Ref. No.RPO/PG/133/11) issued by the respondent, i.e. the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), New Delhi, whereby the petitioners request for issuance of a passport has been declined. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent RPO to issue a passport in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the information supplied by the petitioner in her passport application form.
2. The petitioner was born on 15.11.1995 at Kolkata. Her natural parents are Sh. Abhijit Ghosh and Smt. Rajeshwari Ghosh, who is now known as Rajehswari Chattoraj. When the petitioner was only about two years old, the natural parents of the petitioner obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the terms agreed between her natural parents, inter alia, provided that the petitioner's mother will not claim and/or demand of maintenance and/or alimony for the minor child at present or in future from the petitioner's father. It was also agreed that the petitioner's mother would maintain the petitioner. The petitioner's father admitted that he has no right to see the child for all times to come and he will not interfere in any manner regarding rearing up the child by the Opposite party and her family members and that he shall have no right to claim and/or demand for custody of the said child from the Opposite party.
3. The petitioner's mother married Sh. Surojit Chattoraj at New Delhi on 04.03.1999. By registered deed of adoption deed dated 12.06.2006, the petitioner was given in adoption by her mother to her husband Sh. Surojit Chattoraj. The petitioner submits that religious ceremonies to mark the acceptance of the petitioner by her adopted father were also held, and were attended by members and friends of the family.
4. On 26.07.2010, the petitioner applied for a passport, through her mother, to the respondent authority. The petitioner was required to provide, inter alia, the registered adoption deed, which was also provided. After much waiting, the petitioner was informed by the impugned communication that her application could not be accepted, as it had been found on scrutiny that the petitioners biological father's name, as per her birth certificate, had not been mentioned in the passport application form, and the adoption deed was not in accordance with the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”).
5. The gist of the communication dated 04.04.2011 issued by the RPO reads as follows:
“On scrutiny of file, it is seen that biological father's name as per birth certificate has not mentioned in the passport application form. The adoption Deed as per Adoption Act is also not valid. As per rules of Ministry of External Affairs Circular No.VI/401/01/05/2008 dated 05.10.2009 serial No.4(2) “In the event of remarriage after divorce, the name of step-father/step mother cannot be written in the passport of children from the previous marriage. The relationship of the child to his biological parents subsists, even after divorce by parents. It is also not possible to leave the column of father or mother blank in the passport in such cases. Therefore, such applicants must write the names of their biological parents in the application form. However, if the stepfather or stepmother is appointed by a Court as legal guardian, the name of such step-parent can be written as legal guardian”.
In view of the instruction, you are advised to furnish a fresh Form-1 with name of biological father or a Court Order appointing you as a Legal Guardian. This may be treated as Final Reminder, your compliance may reach this office within 15 days, failing which you have nothing to say and your complaint may be treated as clos
