The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a passport cannot be revoked or impounded merely because of an inadvertent error in disclosing marital status or including the name of an ex-husband. Justice Harsh Bunger, while deciding the petition, emphasized that such mistakes cannot be treated as fraudulent misrepresentation under the Passports Act, 1967, and that revocation in such circumstances would amount to arbitrary exercise of discretion.

Facts:

The Petitioner in the present case had earlier been married to Siddharth Narula, with the marriage ending in 2011. In 2015, she applied for renewal of her passport through an agent. However, due to an oversight, the renewed passport incorrectly recorded her spouse’s name as that of her former husband. In 2023, she remarried Neeraj Kumar, and following a matrimonial dispute, he filed a complaint before the passport authorities alleging that she had concealed material facts and obtained the passport under false marital status. Acting on this complaint, the authorities revoked the passport.

The Petitioner, while challenging this action, contended that the error was purely inadvertent and devoid of any fraudulent intent. The Court accepted this submission, observing that Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act empowers the authority to revoke or impound a passport only when it has been obtained by suppression of material information “with a view to obtain” such passport. The Court stressed that this phrase denotes deliberate misrepresentation, not genuine error. It further noted that the authorities had failed to comply with Section 10(5), which requires reasons to be recorded in writing whenever discretion to revoke a passport is exercised.

"where there is an inadvertent mistake or lapse on the part of the applicant or anyone on his/her behalf to disclose his/her correct marital status in the passport application or wrong name of the spouse has been mentioned in passport application due to some oversight, 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." stated the court.

Importantly, the Court highlighted that there was no evidence of misuse of the passport or any undue benefit being obtained by the petitioner. On the contrary, the ex-husband himself confirmed that the inclusion of his name was an inadvertent mistake and not a deliberate act of concealment. The High Court also criticized the appellate authority for restoring the revocation order in a mechanical manner, without applying independent reasoning or considering the bona fides of the case.

In light of these findings, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to issue a fresh passport with the correct particulars, subject to standard verification.

Case Title: Navpreet Kaur V. UOI & Ors.,CWP-10890-2025

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Navkiran Singh

Advocate for Respondent: Ms. Shreyansi Verma, Central Government Counsel