The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that regional passport authorities cannot insist on endorsing an estranged father's name when renewing a minor’s passport, provided the mother holds exclusive legal custody under a court decree.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Maneesh Sharma at the Jaipur Bench in a writ petition filed by fourteen-year-old Ekang Mishra through his mother and natural guardian, Gazal Mishra. The petitioner’s parents dissolved their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in October 2017. Under the court decree, exclusive custody was awarded to the mother, and the biological father relinquished all parental rights, visitation, and financial obligations. In 2019, the Regional Passport Office (RPO) in Jaipur issued the child a five-year passport containing only the mother’s name.

When the mother applied for the passport’s renewal in April 2024, the Jaipur RPO rejected the request on May 13, 2024, insisting that administrative guidelines required the father's name to be included. Justice Sharma set aside the RPO's rejection order, terming the department’s stance "hyper-technical and pedantic," and directed the authority to renew the minor's passport without requiring the father's particulars within one month.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Administrative Law / Family Law

Sub-topic: Passport Regulations / Single-Parent Guardianship & Minor Custody

Core Legal Issue

The primary question before the High Court was whether passport authorities can mandatorily insist on entering the biological father's name on a minor child's passport at the renewal stage, relying on subsequent internal departmental guidelines, despite the mother possessing exclusive legal custody under a judicial divorce decree and an earlier passport having already been issued solely in her name.

Specifically, the court examined whether the Ministry of External Affairs' internal instructions can override judicial custody settlements and the regulatory framework that permits single custodial parents to omit an absent parent's name upon submitting statutory declarations.

What Did the Court / Authority Decide?

Justice Maneesh Sharma allowed the writ petition and quashed the Jaipur Regional Passport Officer's rejection order dated May 13, 2024.

The High Court directed the RPO Jaipur to renew and issue Ekang Mishra’s passport without requiring the father’s name or signature within one month of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The court held that having already recognized the mother as a single custodial parent when issuing the passport in 2019, the passport authority could not mechanically reverse its position at the renewal stage. Justice Sharma observed that the mother had fulfilled all procedural requirements by providing the divorce decree granting her sole custody alongside the requisite Annexure 'C' and Annexure 'D' declarations.

Key Legal Points

• Arbitrary Reversal of Prior Documentation: Having verified the sole-custody documentation and issued a passport in 2019 bearing only the mother's name, the passport office could not arbitrarily alter its stance upon renewal by citing subsequent administrative clarifications.

• Supremacy of Judicial Custody Decrees: A formal court order granting exclusive maternal custody—wherein the father has severed all parental ties and waived visitation—carries decisive legal weight over rigid administrative interpretations.

• Statutory Scope of Single-Parent Declarations: The passport regulatory framework, including revised application procedures, explicitly permits single parents to furnish details of only one parent where an absent parent plays no role in the child's life.

• Disapproval of Hyper-Technical Bureaucracy: The court cautioned administrative bodies against adopting pedantic hurdles that ignore real-world family dissolutions and place unreasonable burdens on bona fide custodial parents.

Relevant Law

• The Passports Act, 1967: Section 6(2), governing the statutory grounds under which travel documents may be refused.

• Passport Rules, 1980 & Passport Manual, 2020: Chapter 8 (Clause 4.5.1) and Chapter 9 (Clauses 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3), providing procedures for minor applicants in the sole custody of a single parent and the submission of Annexure 'C' declarations.

• Ministry of External Affairs Clarification: Office clarification dated February 28, 2023, regarding parental endorsements for children born during wedlock.

• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 13-B, under which the mutual consent divorce and exclusive child custody settlement were formalized.

• Precedents Considered: Judgments of the Delhi High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming that minor children deserted by one biological parent are entitled to passports reflecting only the custodial parent's details.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Applicant

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mother was awarded exclusive, unconditional custody of the minor child by a competent family court during mutual consent divorce proceedings in 2017. The father had entirely severed contact, paid no maintenance, and exercised no visitation rights.

The petitioner argued that the passport portal and the Passport Manual allow single custodial parents to omit an absent parent's name. Furthermore, the authorities had already recognized these identical circumstances in 2019 when granting the original passport. Withholding the minor's renewal under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act based on a subsequent circular was characterized as arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful.

Respondent / Passport Authorities

Counsel appearing for the Union of India and the Regional Passport Office contended that Clauses 4.1 and 4.3 of the Passport Manual, read alongside the MEA clarification of February 28, 2023, mandate the particulars of both biological parents when a child is born during lawful wedlock, even if a divorce later ensues.

The respondents argued that omission of a father's name is reserved for narrow exceptions, such as unwed single mothers or instances where the father’s identity is unknown. They maintained that requiring an undertaking containing the biological father’s name was well within the passport authority's regulatory discretion and procedural duties.

Why Does It Matter?

This judgment reinforces practical safeguards for single parents—particularly mothers—who navigate administrative deadlocks after marital breakdowns. Regional passport offices often enforce blanket circulars rigidly, compelling single mothers to produce estranged ex-spouses who have formally abandoned parental obligations.

By curbing this mechanical approach, the Rajasthan High Court established that administrative clarifications cannot be weaponized to disregard binding family court decrees. The ruling clarifies that where an absent parent has no legal custody or ongoing relationship with a minor child, the child’s fundamental freedom of travel and documentation rights cannot be held hostage to pedantic record-keeping rules.

Legal Takeaway

Where a court has granted exclusive custody to one parent and the other parent has completely relinquished parental rights, passport authorities cannot refuse to renew a minor’s passport solely because the absent parent’s name is omitted. Once single-parent status has been verified and an initial passport granted, authorities cannot mechanically reverse that position by relying on departmental clarifications.

Sources

Primary Source:

Ekang Mishra (Minor) through Natural Guardian Gazal Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Bench at Jaipur), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17310/2025, Neutral Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:37212], Judgment delivered on September 25, 2026 (Per Maneesh Sharma, J.).

Additional Sources:

• Regional Passport Office, Jaipur, Impugned Rejection Order No. JP1079462142024(Policy) dated May 13, 2024.

• Passport Manual, 2020 (Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India), Chapters 8 & 9.

• Ministry of External Affairs Clarification Note dated February 28, 2023.