Passport Authority Cannot Deny Date Of Birth Correction To Minor, Ignoring Corrected Records: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a passport authority cannot refuse to consider correction of a minor's date of birth merely because the earlier passport carried an incorrect date for several years, particularly when the error was subsequently corrected in the school records and the earlier birth certificate was cancelled by the competent authority.
While holding so the court directed the Passport Authority to consider a minor's application for a fresh passport reflecting his correct date of birth within two weeks.
Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the directions while allowing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Fazli Illahi, through his father, who had approached the Court seeking a passport reflecting his correct date of birth. The petitioner had qualified NEET 2025 and secured admission to a medical programme abroad, making a valid passport reflecting his correct date of birth essential.
The petitioner's date of birth had inadvertently been recorded as 12 July 2004 instead of 25 May 2008 in his school records at the initial stage of his education. The same incorrect date consequently found its way into his first passport.
After discovering the error in 2018, the petitioner approached the Zonal Education Officer, Kakapora, and, following due procedure, his school records were corrected to reflect 25 May 2008. His subsequent academic records, including his 10th, 11th and 12th standard certificates, also carried the corrected date.
The petitioner also produced a fresh Birth Certificate recording his date of birth as May 25, 2008. The earlier Birth Certificate, which had reflected the erroneous date, was subsequently cancelled by the competent authority.
Despite these developments, when the petitioner applied for re-issuance of his passport, the Passport Authority again retained the earlier date of birth. His subsequent representations seeking correction were not acted upon.
The respondents opposed the petition, contending, among other things, that the petitioner had retained the earlier passport for more than a decade without seeking correction and that the request for change of date of birth at that stage was unjustified.
The High Court, however, found that the Passport Authority had failed to properly consider the case in light of its own governing circular.
The Court referred to Clause 4(iii) of Ministry of External Affairs Circular No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dated November 26, 2015, which generally restricts correction of date of birth after five years from issuance of the passport, but expressly creates an exception for persons who were minors when the passport containing the wrong date was issued.
The Court held that the Passport Officer had failed to appreciate this exception and had rejected the petitioner's case merely by relying on the date appearing in the birth certificate produced when the first passport was obtained.
Justice Parihar noted that by the time the petitioner applied for the subsequent passport, his school records had already been corrected, his earlier birth certificate had been cancelled, and his correct date of birth had been duly certified by the competent authority.
“….Passport Officer has failed to consider the case of the petitioner by rejecting merely on the ground that the birth certificate presented by the petitioner at the time of seeking his first passport was recording his date of birth as 12.7.2004, ignoring the fact that at the time when the petitioner applied for the second passport”, the court recorded.
The Court observed that the Passport Officer was required to consider the special concession contained in the circular for minors and, irrespective of the period that had elapsed since issuance of the earlier passport, consider the request along with the documents produced by the petitioner.
The Bench therefore found that the authority had failed to properly apply its own guidelines to the facts of the case.
Right To Travel And Pursue Medical Education
The Court also took into account the immediate consequences for the petitioner, who had secured admission to the International Higher School of Medicine, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, for the 2026–27 academic session. The university had recorded his date of birth as May 25, 2008, consistent with his academic and other documentary records.
The High Court observed that refusing to issue a passport with the correct date of birth would affect the petitioner's ability to travel abroad for his medical education. It held,
“Declining a passport reflecting the correct date of birth of the petitioner, would take away the inalienable right of free movement of the petitioner particularly at a time when he has got admitted in a foreign country to undergo a medical degree.”
Considering the corrected educational records, the fresh Birth Certificate and the cancellation of the earlier certificate, the Court found the continued refusal to consider the petitioner's request unsustainable.
The Bench held that the inaction of the authorities was “arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of the principles of natural justice” and contrary to the Passports Act, 1967 and the applicable rules, which recognise educational and birth certificates as valid proof of date of birth.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the Passport Authority, to consider the petitioner's application for a fresh passport reflecting his correct date of birth on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate. The exercise was directed to be completed within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.
Case Title: Mohammad Fazli Illahi through his father v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326
Petitioner's Counsel: Mr. Tasaduk Hussain Reshi, Advocate
Respondents' Counsel: Ms. Yasmeen Jan, Advocate, vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI