Sharmila.O vs Chief Passport Officer

K. V. Jayakumar, J

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to incorporate the name of the Petitioner’s deceased husband in her passport.

Declare the action of R2 as illegal, Arbitrary and denial of Fundamental rights.”

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, Sharmila O., is a widow belonging to a vulnerable section of the society with a disadvantaged socio-economic background. She is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in refusing to incorporate her deceased husband’s name in her passport. It is submitted that her husband died on 13.03.2021.

Pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority, Regional Passport Officer, issued passport to her on 25.02.2025, having number C7951029. The petitioner had produced and exhibited a copy of the said passport as Ext.P1.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-incorporation of the name of the husband of the petitioner in Ext.P1 passport is a lapse on the part of the 2nd respondent, the Regional Passport Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already produced the relevant documents required for effecting the relevant entries.

On the other hand, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that some clarification is required and further documents are necessary to incorporate the name of the husband of the petitioner in the passport. If the petitioner is ready to furnish the documents and to comply the necessary formalities as required by the Rules, respondents are ready to incorporate the particulars in the passport.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had to go abroad on 05.01.2026 to take up an employment. All the arrangements were made by the petitioner for her travel. But due to the defect in the passport, the job opportunity offered to the petitioner is likely to be jeopardized.

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned DSGI, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following directions:

i. The petitioner shall approach the respondents at the earliest to make necessary entries in the passport and submit necessary particulars.

ii. If the petitioner approaches the respondents with necessary application and documents as may be required, the respondents shall effect necessary entries in her passport forthwith.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.