In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has determined that passport authorities cannot obligate a divorced individual to present a court-issued divorce decree in order to remove a former spouse’s name from their passport. Justice Murali Purushothaman clarified that the existing rules do not mandate that a divorcee must provide such a decree as evidence that their marriage has been legally dissolved.
The judgment referenced Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980, which outlines the necessary documents to accompany an application. Justice Purushothaman emphasized that passport authorities cannot impose additional document requirements through executive instructions or office memorandums that are not stipulated by statutory rules. He noted, “It is well established that executive instructions or office memorandums cannot override, amend, or supersede statutory rules. When the statute does not require proof of marriage dissolution for deleting a spouse’s name from the passport, such proof cannot be demanded via an office memorandum like Annexure R2(a).”
This ruling came in response to a petition filed by a Muslim woman whose application to reissue her passport without her former husband’s name was rejected by the passport authorities. The authorities demanded a divorce decree, which she did not possess, as her divorce was finalized through ‘Talaq,’ a process governed by Muslim personal law in 2025. The petitioner appealed to the court for relief after her request was denied.
The passport authorities defended their position by citing a September 2024 office memorandum from the Ministry of External Affairs. The memorandum aimed to prevent misuse of the simplified procedure, where applicants reportedly entered third parties’ names as spouses without their consent. It mandated a divorce decree for removing a spouse’s name. However, the court highlighted that such a requirement is not included in the passport rules.
The court further observed, “The statute dispenses with the requirement of producing documentary proof of marriage or dissolution of marriage, including a decree of divorce, for changing a name or deleting a spouse’s name in the passport.”
Justice Purushothaman also referenced the court’s earlier decision in Ayshath Bunayath v Union of India, which established that passport authorities could not demand a divorce decree for marriages dissolved through ‘Mubaraat’ (mutual consent divorce under Muslim law). The court acknowledged that ‘Talaq,’ pronounced by a husband, is similarly recognized under Muslim personal law, even in the absence of documentary evidence.
Consequently, the court directed the Regional Passport Officer to reassess the petitioner’s application to remove her ex-husband’s name from her passport and make a decision within one month. Advocates MS Shaju Purushothaman and KS Rajesh represented the petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General of India OM Shalina represented the Union government and passport authorities.
