Last Updated:
Navpreet Kaur had challenged the revocation of her passport by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, and the subsequent dismissal of her appeal by the Chief Passport Officer.
When she applied for a new passport in 2015, the document, through what she claimed was an “inadvertent mistake” by an “unknown travel agent,” listed Dr Narula as her spouse.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside the revocation of a woman’s passport, stating that an inadvertent error in mentioning her previous spouse’s name does not constitute “suppression of material information” under the Passports Act, 1967. Court clarified that the power to impound or revoke a passport is discretionary and cannot be exercised for a genuine mistake that would not have affected the issuance of the document.
The judgment was delivered by the single-judge bench of Justice Harsh Bunger in a plea filed by one Navpreet Kaur, who had challenged the revocation of her passport by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, and the subsequent dismissal of her appeal by the Chief Passport Officer.
Recommended Stories
Navpreet Kaur was divorced from her first husband, Dr Siddharth Narula, in 2011. When she applied for a new passport in 2015, the document, through what she claimed was an “inadvertent mistake” by an “unknown travel agent,” listed Dr Narula as her spouse. The error came to light in 2023, after her second marriage to Neeraj Kumar, when she applied for a re-issue to update her spouse’s name. A complaint from her new husband triggered an inquiry by the passport authorities.
On January 29, 2025, the passport office revoked her passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, citing “suppression/wrong information provided by the holder”. The petitioner’s appeal was also dismissed, with the appellate authority granting her liberty to apply for a fresh passport.
The central legal question before the court was “Whether mentioning of petitioner’s previous husband’s name, as against the column ‘name of spouse’ in the passport application, amounts to suppression of material information or giving wrong information so as to attract Section 10(3)(b) of the 1967 Act…?”
Justice Harsh Bunger examined the provisions of the Passports Act, noting that the power under Section 10(3)(b) is “discretionary in nature.” Court reasoned that for information to be considered “material,” its suppression must have been “with a view to obtaining the passport” and must be of a nature that would have led the passport authority to refuse the passport’s issuance under Section 6 of the Act.
Court found that Section 6(2) of the Act, which outlines the grounds for refusing a passport, does not include “suppression or wrong information as regards ‘marital status of an applicant’”. The judgment stated, “Evidently, in sub-section (2) of section 6 of 1967 Act, there is no mention as regards suppression or wrong information as regards ‘marital status of an applicant’”.
Court further referred to the Passport Rules, 1980, which provide a nuanced view on such errors. Schedule III of the Rules classifies “minor suppressions of information regarding marital status/name of spouse, etc., inadvertently” as a minor offense, for which a penalty of Rs. 500 is leviable. This provision, the court observed, indicates that such a mistake is not considered a serious offense meriting passport revocation.
Court also cited a previous judgment, Dr. Madas Venkat Goud vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which similarly held that false information that makes “no difference for the passport authorities to issue passport” does not constitute a punishable offence.
“I am of the considered view that the applicant for passport or anyone on his/her behalf is required to give/disclose correct information, as is sought in the passport application. However, where there is an inadvertent mistake or lapse on the part of the applicant… the same would not fall within the mischief of Section 10 (3) (b) of the 1967 Act; so as to call for any impounding/revocation of passport under Section 10 (3) (b) of the 1967 Act,” the judge concluded.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of the passport authorities were set aside.
Court also directed the authorities to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner with correct details.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
September 12, 2025, 14:56 IST
Loading comments…
Read More
