Disposed¶21

Raj Trehan v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC1 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4145/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 4145/2026, disposed 01.04.2026; PIL by Raj Trehan (in person) against Union of India & Ors. regarding documents acceptable on the Passport Seva website for name change; prayer to list Gazette of India (Central Government) as acceptable document; Court routed grievance via representation to respondent no.2 (maintainer of passport website) with fortnight filing window and three-week decision deadline; conditional website rectification; no merits adjudicated; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent no.2 within a fortnight; the representation to be attended to and considered by the competent authority, which shall take an appropriate decision within three weeks; the website to be rectified if the asserted rectification is found necessary.

Raj Trehan Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Passport Seva website should expressly include the Gazette of India (Central Government) as an acceptable document for name change.

¶12

Court's answer

The Court recorded that the passport website is maintained by respondent no.2.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Court permitted the petitioner to represent his cause to respondent no.2 within a fortnight by making a representation.

¶14

Key takeaways

If such a representation is made, it shall be attended to, the issues raised therein shall be considered, and an appropriate decision shall be taken by the competent authority of respondent no.2.ratio¶15
If the rectification asserted by the petitioner (who appears in person) is found necessary, the website shall accordingly be rectified.ratio¶19
The decision on the representation to be preferred by the petitioner under this order shall be taken within three weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest litigation (W.P.(C) 4145/2026) by Raj Trehan, appearing in person, praying for a direction to update the Passport Seva website to expressly include the Gazette of India (Central Government) as an acceptable document for name change. The High Court of Delhi (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ and Tejas Karia, J) did not adjudicate the issue on merits. Recording that the passport website is maintained by respondent no.2, the Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.2 within a fortnight, directed that the representation be attended to and considered and an appropriate decision taken by the competent authority within three weeks, and that the website be rectified if the asserted rectification were found necessary. Writ petition disposed of on 01.04.2026.

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4145/2026 RAJ TREHAN .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: In person.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms.Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Mr.Rudra Paliwal, GP for UOI.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 01.04.2026

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

By instituting this public interest litigation petition, a prayer has been made to direct the respondent to update the Passport Seva website explicitly including the “ Gazette of India (Central Government)” as an acceptable document for name change.

¶13

We have been informed that passport website is maintained by respondent no.2.

¶14

Having regard to the nature of issue raised in this public interest litigation petition, we permit the petitioner to represent his cause to the respondent no.2 within a fortnight from today by making a representation.

¶15

In case such a representation is made, the same shall be attended to and issue, which may be raised therein, shall be considered and appropriate decision shall also be taken by the competent authority of the respondent no.2.

¶16

In case, any such rectification, which has been asserted by the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:37:38

¶19

petitioner, who appears in person, is found necessary, the website shall, accordingly, be rectified as well.

¶20

The decision on the representation to be preferred by the petitioner under this order shall be taken within three weeks from today.

¶21

The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

¶23

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶24

APRIL 1, 2026 S.Rawat

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:37:38

Raj Trehan v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Trehan v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Bachan Singh Vs Consolidation Officer

Manas Kumar Dubey & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anju Tanwar Vs Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors.

Sonu Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Ram Kripal Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Siyaram Meena and Ors. Vs Railway Protection Force and Ors.

Shakuntla Sharma Vs DDA & Ors.

Anju Kapur Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Kamlesh Vs Delhi Development Authority

Saurabh Malik & Anr. Vs Komita Singh

The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India & Anr. Vs Rajeev Kumar & Anr.

Garima Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.