The court rejected the petitioner's application to correct his date of birth and name in his passport issued over 20 years ago, citing lack of reliance on self-declarations and prior judicial precedent regarding passport corrections.
The petitioner's prayer for correction of date of birth and name was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2015/1ST SRAVANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 16017 of 2015 (B)
PETITIONER(S) :
BINU THANKACHAN, S/O.P.THANKACHAN, PANAMKUNNIL PADINJATTETHIL HOUSE, KURUMPAKARA P.O., PATHANAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.R.VINU RAJ
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 16017 of 2015 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE R2(A): TRUE COPY OF INDEX CARD.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C) No.16017 of 2015 - B
====================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's application for correction of date of birth and name have not been considered. Admittedly, the petitioner's passport was issued initially in the year 1993. The petitioner had renewed the passport every 10 years after that. At no point in the past more than 20 years, the petitioner ever raised a claim as to the correction of the date of birth and name. The petitioner after 20 years has made the application for correction from 21.05.1970 to 28.05.1974. The petitioner bases his contention on Ext.P3 copy of the Marriage Certificate, Ext.P4 copy of the Driving Licence, Ext.P5 copy of the Aadhar Card, Exts.P6 and P7 copy of the affidavit, Ext.P9 certificate issued by the Village Officer, Ext.P10 copy for relevant page of the Ration Card, Ext.P11 Marriage Certificate and Ext.P12 Aadhar Card of the petitioner.
2
W.P.(C) No.16017 of 2015 - B
Officer [2015 (3) KLT 158] , held that the correction of date of birth in passport, after many number of years would not be possible, especially finding that the passport discloses the identity of the citizen in his travels, residence and employment abroad and the date of birth declared thereon cannot be easily corrected for the asking.
Exts.P9 to 12, it was held that the date of birth shown in the extract of the aforementioned certificates are also based on a declaration made by either the petitioner or his parents and there can be no reliance placed on that when the petitioner had
3
W.P.(C) No.16017 of 2015 - B
declared a different date of birth before the P.I.A. and had
obtained a passport with a date, which had been acted upon by many others.
birth can be made. The petitioner’s prayer for correction of date of birth is rejected.
asserts that in all probability the case would reveal an instance of impersonation. It is highly suspect that the petitioner who held the passport for more than 20 years did not notice the change in name. Hence the petitioner shall be put to strict proof and the PIA shall enquire into the same and change the name only if the same is found to be genuine.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above
observations.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB
// true copy // P.A to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether passport details of date of birth and name can be corrected after more than 20 years.
Whether declarations made by the petitioner regarding his correct name and date of birth have evidentiary value under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the alleged impersonation or change in name should be investigated before permitting a name correction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jayakumar v. Regional Passport OfficerRelied on¶44
Jayakumar v. Regional Passport Officer [2015 (3) KLT 158]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Binu Thankachan
Union of India
The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Kaithamukku
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
