SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Abhinav Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Table of Content
1. change of birth date requires verification. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. verification confirmation supports petitioner's claim. (Para 5)
3. guidelines for processing change of birth date. (Para 6 , 7)
4. insistence on letter specifics seen as hindrance. (Para 8)
5. issuance of new passport directed. (Para 9)
6. petition disposed with instructions. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

2. Despite the judgment of this Court in Sunita Sawhney v. Union of India, (WP(C) 10839/2015, decided on 3rd December, 2015), wherein this Court has clearly observed that for change of date of birth, the passport office ought to accept the birth certificate, the filing of writ petitions seeking the change of date of birth does not seem to abate.

3. In the present case, the Petitioner had his old passport bearing No. F2934532 issued to him on 17th March, 2005, with validity period up to 16th March, 2010, when he was a minor. In the said passport, his date of birth was recorded as 18th August, 1997. In March/April, 2019, the Petitioner applied for issuance of a new passport wherein he gave his date of birth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top