Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Consent of Non-Custodial Parent Not Material for Grant of Passport: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Impounding of Minor's Passport

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court has set aside the impounding of a minor's passport amidst a parental custody battle, stating that the consent of the non-custodial parent was not material for the issuance of the passport under the Passports Act, 1967. The court dismissed allegations that the mother had suppressed material information while obtaining the passport.

The case revolved around Dr. Agnidipa Das and her husband Dr. Ranajoy Dutta, who are embroiled in legal disputes concerning the custody and passport of their seven-year-old daughter. Following the separation, Dr. Das had applied and obtained a passport for their daughter, which Dr. Dutta contended was issued based on the suppression of material facts, leading to its impoundment.

Justice Bhattacharyya closely analyzed the materiality of the information allegedly suppressed by Dr. Das. He noted that the core of the dispute lay in whether the information withheld, particularly regarding the consent of the non-custodial parent, was material enough to justify the impoundment of the minor's passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act.

The court observed, drawing from precedents, that the consent of a parent not having custody does not bear materially on the issuance of a passport for a minor. It emphasized that "the alleged suppression of information could not have brought any material benefit to the mother and as such, cannot be a basis of cancellation of the passport on the ground of deliberate suppression."

Justice Bhattacharyya pointed out the discretionary nature of the said provision, stating that not every incorrect or incomplete information automatically leads to passport impoundment. The intent or 'mens rea' behind the non-disclosure should be considered to determine if there was a deliberate attempt to suppress material information.

The judge criticized the hasty decision-making process by the Passport Authority, which did not adequately consider the mother's explanations or the circumstances under which the passport was applied for and issued. The decision was thus deemed cryptic and arbitrary.

Various judgments were cited where the courts held that non-disclosure of a non-custodial parent's consent was not material enough to warrant adverse actions such as impoundment of a passport.

Decision: The court allowed the petition filed by Dr. Agnidipa Das (WPA No. 7360 of 2024), setting aside the order impounding her daughter's passport. Conversely, WPA No. 8033 of 2024 filed by Dr. Ranajoy Dutta seeking further penalties against Dr. Das was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 30th April 2024.

Dr. Agnidipa Das vs. Ranajoy Dutta

Latest Legal News