M.Kunhimoideen Kutty v. Regional Passport Office, Passport Officer Regional Passport Office, Assistant Passport Officer Malappuram Passport Seva Kendra, Union of India
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Bechu Kurian Thomas
- Judgment Date
- 2021-11-30
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition dismissed; no order to correct the date of birth in the passport.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M. Kunhimoideenkutty
Respondents
- Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bypass Road, Eranhipalam, Kozhikode; Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bypass Road, Eranhipalam, Kozhikode; Assistant Passport Officer, Malappuram Passport Seva Kendra, Sajidha Tower, Jubilee Road, Moonamapadi, Malappuram; Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. R. Ramadas
Counsels for Respondents
- • Shri. S. Manu, ASG of India
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition challenging the correction of the petitioner’s date of birth in his passport. The petitioner asserts that his true date of birth is 28 May 1965, supported by his SSLC book, driving license, and Aadhar card, while his passport bears the date 2 October 1961. He explains that his initial passport was issued when he was about 15 years old and that he later travelled abroad for work, including to the United Arab Emirates. On 01 October 2020 he sought correction, and subsequently registered a birth date with the Local Self Government, producing Ext.P9 (birth certificate) issued after a SDM order dated 03 December 2020 directing registration under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The respondents counter that the petitioner’s initial passport was issued decades ago based on documents available at that time and that there are alleged offences under the Passports Act, 1967 for providing false information. They also contend that correcting the date of birth after four decades would be inappropriate and contrary to MEA instructions. The court emphasizes that a passport is a solemn document; corrections require exceptional circumstances, which are not shown here. Citing Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar and Vasu Sasi v. Union of India, the court dismisses the petition, holding no exceptional basis to compel correction.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Passport entries are based on documents submitted for the issuance of the passport and are solemn entries; corrections require exceptional circumstances.
- A writ court will not direct correction of a passport date of birth without exceptional circumstances; reliance on existing statutory authority and MEA instructions is decisive.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the date of birth, as evidenced by the SSLC and other documents (and Ext.P9 birth certificate), is 28.05.1965 and that the correction of the passport date is necessary to reflect his true date of birth for legitimate purposes including employment abroad; he argues that the birth certificate issued after a SDM order shows recognition of a corrected date and that withholding correction would cause unjust hardship given his long history of travel and employment.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the petitioner obtained multiple passports decades ago based on misrepresented information and that correcting the date of birth after forty years would be inconsistent with law and policy; they point to the Passports Act, 1967 and MEA instructions, and suggest that the veracity of new documents cannot be tested by the passport authority; they also note possible offences for misrepresentation.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar | 2015 (3) KLT 501 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that passport entries are based on documents submitted at the time of issuance and that corrections in the absence of exceptional circumstances should be approached cautiously. |
| Vasu Sasi v. Union of India and Others | 2020 (4) KHC 405 | Positive | Cited to reinforce the principle that post-issuance corrections require appropriate statutory justification and that reliance on new documents for corrections is limited. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M.Kunhimoideen Kutty v. Regional Passport Office, Passport Officer Regional Passport Office, Assistant Passport Officer Malappuram Passport Seva Kendra, Union of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.