The welfare of the child and evolving societal norms are paramount considerations in cases involving the requirement of mentioning the father's name in a passport application.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Petitioner No.1 by way of the present writ petition has sought re-issuance of her daughter-petitioner No.2's passport without insisting upon her father's name being mentioned in the application.

2. Petitioner No.1, who appeared in person, stated that she is divorced from her husband and has raised petitioner No.2 as a single parent since her birth on 24th August, 1997. She contended that the biological father had completely abdicated his responsibilities towards petitioner No.2 since her birth.

3. Petitioner No.1 stated that the respondents insistence upon petitioner No.2 mentioning her father's name in the application violated the rights of petitioner No.2 to determine her name and identity. She pointed out that the entire record of petitioner No.2-daugther which included her educational certificates and Aadhar Card etc. did not bear the name of her father. She submitted that if the directions sought for in the present petition are not issued, the petitioner No.2-daughter would be compelled to alter her identity that she had been using since her birth as daughter of petitioner No.1 rather than of her biological father. According to her, through the malafide, arbitrary and discriminatory decision of respondents, petitioner No.2 was being compelled to mention the name of her biological father who had refused to accept her because she is a female child. She emphasised that respondents had originally in the year 2005 and subsequently in 2011 issued a Passport without insisting upon petitioner No.2's father.

4. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that the computerised Passport application form has a column with regard to father's name under the heading 'Family Details'. He stated that the said form must be filled by the petitioner No. 2. In support of his contention, he relied upon Chapter 8, Clause IV (4.5) of the Passport Manual which reads as under:-

"IV. Parent name not to be deleted from passport consequent to Divorce

4.5 Request for deletion of parent name from passport due to parents' divorce should not be accepted. By virtue of the divorce decree, only the relation as wife and husband severs. The divorce decree does not result in severance of the relation between the child and the parent, unless the parent has legally disowned the child."

5. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that it is a well recognized principle of law that the relationship between parents and children do not get dissolved, except in cases of valid adoption. Consequently, according to him, the name of the father has to be mentioned by petitioner No. 2, before the petitioner No.2's application for issuance of Passport can be considered. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of the Madras High Court in Mrs. B.S. Deepa vs. The Regional Passport Officer, Writ Petition No.29105/2014.

6. Keeping in view the important question of law that was involved in the present proceedings, this Court vide order dated 22nd January, 2016 had appointed Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate, as the learned Amicus Curiae.

7. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned Amicus Curiae, pointed out that in Kavneet Kaur vs. Regional Passport Office, W.P.(c) 3582/2014 decided on 31st July, 2014 a Coordinate Bench of this Court had set aside the order of Ministry of External Affairs, by which the petitioner's request for including the name of her step father as her father in the Passport had been denied. He stated that the Court allowed the said writ petition principally on the ground that the said request was not in violation of any provision of the Passport Manual and further on account of the fact that all relevant documents mentioned the name of her step father and any variance in the Passport would create confusion.

8. Mr. Amit Bansal submitted that in Ms. Teesta Chattoraj vs. Union of India, LPA 357/2012 decided on 11th May, 2012, a Division Bench of this Court had held that no rights of a biological father can be recogni