Major Applicant Does Not Need Parent’s ID For Passport: Telangana HC

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court held that passport authorities cannot insist upon identity documents of parents for issuance of a passport to an adult applicant and observed that such insistence was illegal and arbitrary. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Neha Fatima and another challenging refusal of an application by the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, on the ground that the applicant had not furnished documents of the parents, voter ID and ration card. According to the petitioners, they applied for a fresh passport on August 22, 2025, and produced all required documents including Aadhaar card, birth certificate and marriage certificate. The passport authorities rejected the application after an adverse police verification report stating that documents of parents were not furnished.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that for adult applicants, only personal proof of identity, address and date of birth were required and that parents’ documents were insisted upon only in the case of minor applicants. It was argued that rejection of the application solely on the basis of non-production of parents’ identity proof was contrary to the Passports Act and Passport Rules. The Union of India, represented by the passport authorities, contended that the application was processed on a pre-police verification basis and an adverse report was received from the police. It was pointed out that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner but no reply was furnished initially. After examining the material on record and the statutory scheme under Section 6 of the Passports Act, Justice Bheemapaka observed that for an adult passport applicant, identity of parents documents were not mandatory and insistence upon such documents would be arbitrary. The court noted that the petitioner had previously been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for more than two years and therefore Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act would disentitle issuance of a passport for a period of five years from the date of conviction. The judge observed that the record did not disclose the date of conviction or whether the statutory five-year period expired. Disposing of the writ petition, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for a fresh passport after expiry of the statutory five-year period from the date of conviction and directed passport authorities to consider the application in accordance with law if the five-year bar period had expired.