The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking correction of a date of birth and removal of the ‘Emigration Check Required’ (ECR) status from a passport on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled that because the petitioner’s birth certificate and passport were issued, corrected, and maintained by authorities located in Uttar Pradesh, the mere physical location of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi cannot confer territorial jurisdiction upon the High Court of Delhi.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Chintan Agrawal, was born on November 9, 2003, at G.G. Medical Institute Centre, Agra. His birth certificate, bearing Registration No. 56, was issued by the Registrar (Births and Deaths), Agra Municipal Corporation, but erroneously recorded his date of birth as September 9, 2003. This error was corrected in the birth records on October 28, 2006, to reflect his correct birthdate of November 9, 2003.
When applying for his passport in 2011, the petitioner’s parents inadvertently submitted the initial, incorrect birth certificate. Consequently, the passport was issued with the incorrect date of birth and was subsequently renewed in 2016 and 2021 by the Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad, without any correction.
Upon attaining the age of majority, Agrawal applied for a renewal of his passport, submitting his corrected birth certificate. However, the Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad, declined to carry out the requested correction and issued Passport No. C1486940 reflecting the incorrect date. Agrawal subsequently sent a legal notice dated July 24, 2025, to the respondents seeking rectification. The request was rejected by the passport authorities via an impugned communication dated August 4, 2025, leading the petitioner to file the writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
At the outset of the proceedings, the counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manu Padalia, argued that the rejection notice was issued without due consideration of the documents placed on record, which included the corrected birth certificate, Voter Identity Card, Aadhaar Card, Class X marksheet, and PAN Card, all reflecting the correct date of birth. He contended that because the office of the MEA is situated in Delhi and the Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad functions under its administrative control and directions, the Delhi High Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondents, Mr. Vijay Joshi (CGSC) and Mr. Vinay Kaushik (GP), submitted that the petitioner’s grievance and cause of action arose entirely within the State of Uttar Pradesh. They pointed out that the petitioner is a resident of Uttar Pradesh, and all primary documents—including the birth certificate, passport, Class X marksheet, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, and Voter Identity Card—were issued by authorities located in Uttar Pradesh. They argued that the physical location of the MEA in Delhi could not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction when the substantive aspects of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh.
The Court’s Analysis
The court analyzed the scope of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It observed that both the local authorities that issued and corrected the birth certificate and the Regional Passport Office that rejected the correction request are located in Uttar Pradesh.
To determine jurisdiction, the court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004), which clarified that the mere location of the seat of the Union Government or authority does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction. Rather, jurisdiction is determined by whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the High Court.
The court also discussed the concept of forum conveniens as established in Kusum Ingots and reiterated in State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. (2023), noting that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a court’s jurisdiction, the court can refuse to exercise its discretionary power if another forum is better suited to adjudicate the dispute.
Furthermore, the court cited the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Gautam Mondal v. Union of India (2026), which held: “From the cumulative perusal of the aforesaid precedents, it emerges that the litigant, being dominus litis, is entitled to approach the jurisdiction of his choice, where cause of action arises in two or more jurisdictions, however, it is upon the Court’s discretion to exercise such jurisdiction, while keeping in mind whether it constitutes an appropriate and convenient forum for adjudication or not.”
Finally, the court cited Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, a precedent where the Delhi High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the Regional Passport Office in Trivandrum, holding that the matter was best dealt with by the High Court of Kerala, where the petitioner resided.
The Decision
Applying these legal principles to the current case, the court determined that the entire bundle of material facts arose within Uttar Pradesh. The court observed:
“In the backdrop of the aforesaid principles, the mere fact that the office of the Ministry of External Affairs is situated in Delhi cannot, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the present petition.”
Sustaining the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, the court held:
“Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.”
Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, reserving the liberty for the petitioner to approach the appropriate legal forum, including the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Case Details:
Case Title: Chintan Agrawal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 8743/2026
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Date: 09.07.2026
