Passport Dispute From UP Can't Be Filed In Delhi Merely Because Ministry Of External Affairs Is Located Here: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a passport dispute cannot be brought before it merely because the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) is located in the national capital. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 645]Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution depends on whether any part of the cause of action arose within the court's...
The Delhi High Court has held that a passport dispute cannot be brought before it merely because the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) is located in the national capital. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 645]
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution depends on whether any part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction.
The bench thus dismissed a plea seeking correction of the petitioner's date of birth in his passport and removal of the “Emigration Check Required” (ECR) status.
It noted that the entire bundle of facts giving rise to the dispute arose in Uttar Pradesh and not Delhi. It said,
“The mere fact that the office of the Ministry of External Affairs is situated in Delhi cannot, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the present petition.”
Petitioner had challenged a communication dated August 4, 2025, issued by the Regional Passport Office (RPO), Ghaziabad, rejecting his request to correct the date of birth recorded in his passport. He also sought directions to the authorities to remove the ECR status from his passport.
According to the Petitioner, he was born on November 9, 2003, at a medical centre in Agra. However, his birth certificate, issued by the Agra Municipal Corporation, erroneously recorded his date of birth as September 9, 2003. The error was corrected in October 2006, but while applying for a passport in 2011, his parents inadvertently submitted the earlier birth certificate. As a result, the incorrect date of birth continued to appear in his passport, including in subsequent renewals in 2016 and 2021.
After attaining majority, the Petitioner sought rectification of the error by relying on the corrected birth certificate as well as his Aadhaar card, voter identity card, PAN card and Class X marksheet, all of which reflected his correct date of birth. However, the RPO declined to make the correction.
Before the High Court, Petitioner argued that the Court possessed territorial jurisdiction since the MEA, which exercises administrative control over the RPO, is situated in Delhi.
The central government however opposed the plea, contending that all the relevant authorities and documents were located in Uttar Pradesh and that no part of the cause of action arose within Delhi.
Accepting the Union's objection, the Court noted that the birth certificate had been issued and corrected in Agra, the passport had been issued and renewed by the RPO in Ghaziabad, and the impugned communication had also emanated from Ghaziabad. The petitioner himself was a resident of Uttar Pradesh.
Reliance was placed on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) where the Supreme Court held that mere location of the seat of the Union Government or the authority concerned does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon a High Court.
As such, the Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.
Appearance: Mr. Manu Padalia, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC and Mr. Vinay Kaushik, GP
Case Title: Chintan Agrawal v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 645
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8743/2026 decided on July 9, 2026.