Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, in Chintan Agrawal v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 645, reiterated the settled principle that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is determined by the place where the cause of action arises and not merely by the location of a government ministry or authority. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the mere presence of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi does not empower the Delhi High Court to entertain every dispute relating to passports if no part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking correction of the date of birth mentioned in his passport and removal of the “Emigration Check Required” (ECR) status. The petitioner challenged the communication dated August 4, 2025, issued by the Regional Passport Office (RPO), Ghaziabad, rejecting his request for correction of his date of birth.

According to the petitioner, he was born on November 9, 2003, in Agra. However, due to an error in the birth certificate issued by the Agra Municipal Corporation, his date of birth was incorrectly recorded as September 9, 2003. Although the error was officially corrected in October 2006, the earlier birth certificate was mistakenly submitted while applying for his passport in 2011. Consequently, the incorrect date of birth continued to appear in his passport and remained unchanged during its subsequent renewals in 2016 and 2021.

After attaining majority, the petitioner applied for correction of the date of birth by producing the corrected birth certificate along with other identity documents, including his Aadhaar card, PAN card, voter identity card and Class X marksheet, all reflecting his correct date of birth. The Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad, rejected the request, leading the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner contended that the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction because the Ministry of External Affairs, which exercises administrative and supervisory control over Regional Passport Offices across the country, is situated in New Delhi. It was argued that since the passport authorities function under the administrative control of the Ministry, the presence of the Ministry within Delhi was sufficient to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

The petitioner further submitted that the mistake in the passport originated from the inadvertent submission of the old birth certificate by his parents despite the birth certificate having already been corrected in 2006. He argued that all his subsequent public documents consistently reflected his actual date of birth and that the passport authorities had wrongly refused to rectify the error despite being furnished with authentic documentary proof. The petitioner also sought removal of the Emigration Check Required (ECR) status from his passport.

The Union of India opposed the maintainability of the writ petition at the threshold. It submitted that every material event giving rise to the dispute had taken place within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The birth certificate had been issued and corrected by the Agra Municipal Corporation, the passport had been issued and renewed by the Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad, the impugned communication had also been issued from Ghaziabad, and the petitioner himself was a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

The Central Government argued that the mere fact that the Ministry of External Affairs is located in Delhi could not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Delhi High Court when the dispute had no factual connection with the National Capital Territory.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the Union of India and dismissed the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that Article 226(2) of the Constitution confers jurisdiction upon a High Court only where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits. The Court emphasized that territorial jurisdiction is determined by examining the bundle of material facts constituting the cause of action and not by the location of the office of a government department or ministry.

The Court noted that every relevant event connected with the dispute had taken place in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner’s birth certificate was issued and subsequently corrected in Agra. The passport was issued and renewed by the Regional Passport Office at Ghaziabad. The communication rejecting the request for correction of the date of birth had also originated from the Ghaziabad office. Moreover, the petitioner was admittedly a resident of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, none of the material facts giving rise to the dispute had any connection with Delhi.

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention regarding the location of the Ministry of External Affairs, the Court held that the existence of the Ministry’s headquarters in Delhi was insufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction. Merely because the Ministry exercises administrative control over Regional Passport Offices across the country does not mean that every dispute relating to passports can be instituted before the Delhi High Court.

In arriving at this conclusion, the Court relied upon the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004), wherein it was held that the mere location of the seat of the Union Government or a central authority does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction upon a High Court unless a part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial limits.

Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the entire bundle of facts underlying the petition originated in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the appropriate forum to challenge the impugned communication was the jurisdictional High Court having territorial jurisdiction over those authorities.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate High Court or competent forum in accordance with law. The judgment serves as an important reminder that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 is founded upon the place where the cause of action arises and cannot be invoked merely because the headquarters of a governmental authority are situated within the territorial limits of a particular High Court.