Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Lack of Consent from a Non-Custodial Parent is Not a Material Consideration for Passport Grant” – Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Minor’s Passport Impoundment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment dated April 30, 2024, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the impoundment of a minor’s passport amidst a custody dispute, observing that the “lack of consent from a non-custodial parent is not a material consideration for the grant of a passport.”

The legal crux revolves around whether the absence of consent from a non-custodial parent constitutes ‘material suppression of information’ sufficient to warrant the cancellation of a minor’s passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. The court held that such consent or lack thereof is not a material factor affecting the passport issuance, thus not justifying the impoundment of the passport.

The case emerged from conflicting writ petitions (WPA No. 7360 of 2024 and WPA No. 8033 of 2024) filed by the parents of a minor following their marital discord and subsequent custody battles. The mother, Dr. Agnidipa Das, contested the Passport Authority’s decision to impound her daughter’s passport, which was allegedly based on her failure to disclose the father’s consent. Conversely, the father, Ranajoy Dutta, sought documentation from the Passport Authority and advocated for penal measures against the mother under the Passports Act, alleging suppression of material facts.

Violation of Natural Justice: The court pointed out that the Passport Authority’s actions violated principles of natural justice, notably ‘Audi Alteram Partem’, as the mother was not adequately heard before impounding the passport.

Material Suppression Not Established: Justice Bhattacharyya ruled that there was no material suppression of information as the requirement for the father’s consent was not a ‘material’ necessity for passport issuance.

Legal Implications of False Information: It was established that the mere non-disclosure of the co-parent’s consent under the circumstances did not constitute a material information breach warranting passport cancellation.

The High Court allowed WPA No. 7360 of 2024 filed by Dr. Agnidipa Das, setting aside the order impounding her daughter’s passport. Concurrently, WPA No. 8033 of 2024 filed by Ranajoy Dutta was dismissed, affirming that no material suppression had occurred and the Passport Authority’s decision lacked substantial grounds.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Dr. Agnidipa Das Versus Union of India and Others  

Latest Legal News