The welfare of a minor child is the paramount consideration. Passport authorities cannot mandate the inclusion of a biological father's name in a minor's passport application when the mother, as the natural guardian, objects, provided the child's welfare is protected and administrative requirements are met.

JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER J.

1. Prayer in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to issue the passport in the name of the petitioner (minor), without insisting upon the consent from the biological father and/or his signature on the application form.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that in the earlier passport of the petitioner also, the name of the biological father was not mentioned.

3. At this stage, Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel, appears on behalf of respondents/UOI in pursuance of the advance copy of paper book having already been supplied to them and does not dispute the aforesaid factum of not mentioning the name of father on the passport earlier issued to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for respondents/UOI further submits that in case the petitioner (minor) through her natural guardian, visits the office of the concerned passport authority on any working day and provides the details of the biological father by mentioning the same in the pending application, the said application would be considered and decided by the passport authority, without insisting that the petitioner (minor) to obtain the signature or consent of her biological father, for the purpose of issuing the passport.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the petitioner through her natural guardian would disclose the details of the biological father of the petitioner (minor); however, it is prayed that suitable direction be issued for not mentioning the name of the biological father in the passport. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Shalu Nigam and another Vs. The Regional Passport Officer and anotherRCR (Civil) 436, wherein the following observations were made:-

“xxx xxx xxx

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. In fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ishmaan Vs. Regional Passport Office, W.P. (C) No. 5100/2010 decided on 21st February, 2011 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 relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“4. The Respondents have themselves enclosed another set of instructions in a reference letter (Annexure R-2) issued on 21st April 1999. Clause 3.2(a) thereof reads as under:-

"3.2 Child born out of wedlock or child having single parent (Reference letter No. V.I/402/2/1/97 dated 21.4.1999).

a) Cases where: (i) the mother who is an Indian citizen, claims that the biological father had no contact with the mother or the child after the child's birth; or where (ii) the child's father is e