&w=3840&q=100)
Wife does not need husband's nod to get a passport, rules Madras HC
New Delhi
The Madras High Court has ruled that a married woman does not require her husband's consent or signature to apply for a passport. The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by a woman whose application was held up by the passport office due to the absence of her husband's signature on Form J — even though the couple is undergoing divorce proceedings, Bar and Bench reported.
What led to the legal dispute?
According to the court order, the woman and her husband were married in 2023 in accordance with Hindu customs. They had a daughter in 2024. However, the marriage soon turned sour, leading the husband to file for divorce in early 2025. The petition seeking dissolution of marriage is currently pending before the Sub Court.
While the divorce case was still ongoing, the wife applied for a passport. The application was rejected by the passport office, which insisted she obtain her husband's signature in Form J — a requirement she found unreasonable, given the marital discord.
When she explained her situation, officials reiterated that the only path forward was obtaining the husband's signature. Left with no other recourse, she moved the High Court, filing a writ petition against the Ministry of External Affairs, the passport office, and the Chennai Police, the news report said.
What did the court observe?
The Madras High Court took a firm stand on the issue. It expressed shock at the passport office's insistence, stating that the demand for a husband's permission reflects a deep-rooted patriarchal mindset.
'The insistence on part of the second respondent [passport office] shows the mindset of the society treating married women as if they are chattel belonging to the husband,' the court said.
The government advocate representing the Chennai Police also confirmed that no criminal cases were pending against the woman.
After examining the facts, the court said, 'In the considered view of this Court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking for passport has to be processed independently. It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before authority.'
The court also noted the impracticality of expecting a woman embroiled in a legal separation to seek the husband's cooperation: 'Already the relationship between the petitioner (wife) and her husband is in doldrums and the second respondent [passport office] is expecting the petitioner to get the signature of the husband. Virtually, the second respondent is insisting the petitioner to fulfill an impossibility.'
What the order say about women's rights?
Reinforcing the autonomy of married women, the court stressed that a woman retains her individuality after marriage. 'The petitioner [wife] after marrying does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form.'
It further said, 'The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for a passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards woman's emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism.'
What was the final order?
Concluding its order, the Madras High Court directed the passport office to process the woman's application without requiring her husband's signature. 'There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent [passport office] to process the application submitted by the petitioner [wife] and issue a passport in the name of the petitioner on the petitioner satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed by the 2nd respondent within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
6 minutes ago
- NDTV
Citizens Must Know Value Of Freedom Of Speech, Expression: Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression and observe self regulation as it mulled guidelines to regulate offensive posts on social media. A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan was hearing a plea of one Wazahat Khan booked in FIRs in several states, including West Bengal, for his objectionable posts on X against a Hindu deity. On June 23, the top court granted him interim protection from coercive action till July 14. Khan had filed a complaint against another social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making communal remarks in a video. Offensive comments should not be made in response to similar posts, his lawyer said in court. 'The citizens must know the value of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The State can step in case of violations… Nobody wants the State to step in (sic),' Justice Nagarathna said. The judge continued, 'All this divisive tendency on social media has to be curbed.' The bench clarified it did not mean censorship. "There should be fraternity among citizens," the bench said, as it considered framing guidelines on freedom of speech and expression for citizens. The bench underlined the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution on freedom of speech and expression, saying they had "rightly been placed". The bench, in the meantime, extended the interim protection from arrest to Khan till the next hearing in the case and asked the counsel to assist it in dealing with the larger issue of self regulation of freedom of speech and expression of citizens. Khan was arrested by Kolkata Police on June 9. He moved the apex court alleging that FIRs and complaints have been lodged against him in several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Haryana, for certain old tweets made by him. The FIRs were in retaliation to a complaint filed by him against Panoli, who was arrested and later released on bail, he argued. "I have deleted all of them and apologised," his counsel said, submitting Khan was perhaps "reaping what he has sown". His counsel argued that the first FIR, according to the petitioner, was dated June 2.
India Today
24 minutes ago
- India Today
How Modi govt's 4 Rajya Sabha picks signal shift in strategic template
Some political appointments are meant to signal intent. Others are meant to shape the ecosystem itself. The July 13 nomination of historian Meenakshi Jain, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) veteran C. Sadanandan Master, 26/11 case special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam and former foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla to the Rajya Sabha, under Article 80(1)(a) of the Constitution, falls squarely in the second list of nominations reflects how the Narendra Modi government, in its third term, intends to deepen its ideological footprint across the Indian state, beyond the immediacy of elections or the drama of parliamentary floor tests. The four individuals come from all different directions: Jain is from Delhi (North), Shringla's hometown is Darjeeling (East), Nikam is from Mumbai (West) and Sadanandan Master is from Kerala (South).advertisementThere is nothing flashy about this group. No big celebrity power, no sentimental choices, no musical legends or Olympic icons. Unlike in 2018-2022, when some Rajya Sabha nominations seemed to be chasing applause—music composer Ilaiyaraaja, sportspersons Mary Kom and P.T. Usha, and others—this round is austere. And that austerity is deliberate. It marks a transition from ornamental symbolism to operational clarity. Modi government 3.0 is no longer showcasing plurality or projecting inclusion. It's focused on consolidation—across institutions, narratives and sectors of strategic Jain. A quiet yet influential historian, her academic work over the past two decades has sought to reconstruct civilisational history from a distinctly Indian—often read as Hindu—perspective. Whether on temple destructions during the medieval invasions or reinterpretation of the Mughal rule, Jain's scholarship aligns neatly with the Sangh Parivar's longstanding agenda of cultural decolonisation. Jain's books, such as Rama and Ayodhya (2013); Sati: Evangelicals, Baptist Missionaries, and the Changing Colonial Discourse (2016); The Battle for Rama: Case of the Temple at Ayodhya (2017); and Flight of Deities and Rebirth of Temples: Episodes From Indian History (2019), have provided intellectual depth to the Sangh Parivar's battle against Leftist historians and helped mobilise support presence in Parliament is meant to echo the ideological stance that increasingly guides current policies on education, heritage and more. In Jain, the government isn't simply nominating a scholar but inserting an ideological subtext into the legislative Master's nomination is equally telling. The BJP refers to him as a 'living martyr' for his resilience and continued activism despite his physical condition. Sadanandan Master is a survivor of political violence. He lost both legs in an alleged attack by CPI(M) workers in 1994 in Kannur district of Kerala. A school teacher by profession, he represents a grassroots legitimacy that the BJP desperately needs in southern India, especially Kerala and Tamil Nadu that have proven electorally resistant to the party's importantly, Sadanandan Master's inclusion in the Rajya Sabha suggests a recalibrated vision of representation—one that places premium not on identity politics but ideological loyalty and ground-level institution-building. He is not a crowd-puller but a cadre-builder. And in a party increasingly obsessed with the long arc of electoral sociology, that matters more. Modi, in his congratulatory post on social media, underlined the violence faced by Sadanandan Master. 'Violence and intimidation couldn't deter his spirit towards national development. His efforts as a teacher and social worker are also commendable,' shared the prime comes Nikam, the prosecutor who became a household name during some of India's most significant anti-terror trials. From the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts to the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, Nikam has built his public persona around an unflinching image of the state's prosecutorial will. His nomination to the Rajya Sabha, reportedly backed by Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, fits neatly into the BJP's broader claim of being the custodian of national also a nod to Maharashtra's complex political dynamics, where the BJP needs both a nationalist narrative and loyal institutional faces to anchor its fight against an emboldened Opposition. Nikam is not just an accomplished lawyer; he is an emblem of the party's claim that India under Modi is stronger, more decisive and less tolerant of threats—internal or external. His legal acumen, combined with his TV-hardened image as the nation's go-to prosecutor, gives the party a potent voice in debates over terror, justice and criminal jurisprudence. In the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, Fadnavis had managed to get him ticket, but Nikam lost. His entry to the Rajya Sabha means the BJP getting a legal luminary to take on the likes of Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the Opposition by contrast, represents the quiet bureaucracy of power. As foreign secretary and later G20 Sherpa, he played a pivotal role in executing India's muscular foreign policy during a time of global flux. His nomination is widely seen as driven by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)—an attempt to embed a trusted technocrat into Parliament, someone who can actively shape legislative debates on foreign affairs, trade policy and geopolitical many ways, Shringla's elevation marks a shift in how the Modi government views diplomacy. No longer insulated from politics, it is now being folded into the political project itself. Parliament is being repositioned as a platform where diplomats no longer report from the sidelines—they participate directly in the debates. In the Lok Sabha polls, the BJP couldn't give Shringla a ticket from his hometown of Darjeeling because of caste fine-balancing. Now, he is being rewarded for his work during India's G20 Clockwise from top left: Ujjwal Deorao Nikam, C. Sadanandan Master, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, and Meenakshi Jain Taken together, the four nominations offer a blueprint of the Modi government's strategic temperament. This is not a government in search of broader consensus. It's one that believes its third term represents not just electoral legitimacy but ideological inevitability. And that belief is shaping the kind of Parliament it is building—not just through elections but selective curation. The Rajya Sabha, often mocked as a place for defeated politicians or ageing notables, is being reimagined by the government as an instrument of deep influence. Not through noise but through alignment—of ideas, expertise and long-term narrative the same time, this isn't a radical departure from the past. If one examines the Modi government's earlier nominations, a pattern becomes clear. The selection of Rakesh Sinha, Swapan Dasgupta and Justice Ranjan Gogoi between 2018 and 2020 were early signals of this strategy. Sinha and Dasgupta brought ideological voice; Gogoi, fresh off the Ram Janmabhoomi case verdict, brought institutional value. That nomination was unprecedented—a chief justice moving to the Upper House mere months after retirement. But in hindsight, it looks like a prototype. Gogoi was the first indication that the Modi government was no longer going to treat Rajya Sabha nominations as ceremonial. They would now be has changed in 2025 is that the tactical has become structural. No longer are there deviations. All four current nominees are specialists in statecraft. All are capable of speaking not just to their domain but to the deeper ideological grammar that governs the Modi era of policymaking. The cultural historian reinforces the civilisational state. The RSS insider extends the party's grassroots circuitry. The prosecutor strengthens the narrative of national security. The diplomat brings foreign policy into direct political consciousness. None of them are generalists. All are instruments of a larger contrast with Congress-era nominations could not be starker. Then, the nominated category was used as a space to accommodate civil society, to showcase symbolic inclusiveness or to rehabilitate loyalists who had lost electoral favour. There was occasional brilliance—think of former chief election commissioner of India M.S. Gill or economist Bhalchandra Mungekar—but rarely was there strategic the Modi era, especially now in its third term, nomination is no longer an act of reward. It's about institutional convergence. Education, law, grassroots outreach, and diplomacy are four of the most powerful levers in a modern state. By placing individuals aligned with its worldview at the intersection of these four domains, the Modi government is shaping not just what Parliament does but how India thinks and must remember that the Rajya Sabha was not designed for this kind of power play. But under Modi, it is increasingly being refashioned as a place of quiet transformation. When the Lok Sabha is about volume, the Upper House is about signal. And these four nominations are a signal in its purest Modi's third term is about legacy—about laying down irreversible foundations—then this round of Rajya Sabha nominations marks a significant milestone. It's a reminder that in politics, the most consequential moves are often the quietest. No hashtags. No headlines. Just four names that could help shape the next decade of Indian statecraft from behind the governors, new signalsMeanwhile, the appointments on July 14 of Prof. Ashim Kumar Ghosh as the governor of Haryana, Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju as the governor of Goa and Kavinder Gupta as the lieutenant governor of Ladakh reflect the Centre's calibrated political signalling with a clear RSS is a scholar with deep RSS links. On the other hand, given his Sangh background in Jammu, Gupta's appointment suggests a focus on stability in Ladakh, which has been in the throes of political discontent over various while now with the BJP, has retained close ties with Telugu Desam Party chief Chandrababu Naidu. His appointment signals careful coalition management of the National Democratic Alliance. The appointments show the BJP leadership is relying on loyalists who align with the Sangh's worldview while also navigating with precision the demands of coalition-era politics and regional power to India Today Magazine- Ends
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Maharashtra will get anti-conversion law, minister announces; bill in next session
Maharashtra will bring in a bill to enact an anti-conversion law in the next session of the legislature, minister of state for home Pankaj Bhoyar said in the state's upper house on Monday. The winter session of the Maharashtra legislature is likely in December if one goes by convention. (Photo: Maharashtra govt) "The government sought a report from the director general of the police, and that has been submitted. In the next session of the state legislature (the winter session as per convention) the government will table the anti-conversion bill. Maharashtra will be the 11th state to enact such a law," said Bhoyar, a BJP leader, speaking during the ongoing monsoon session. The announcement gains significance as it comes from the MoS for home affairs, the ministry that is responsible for law and order. This is less than a week after revenue minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule not only spoke about enacting a 'strict' law but also about demolishing what he termed unauthorised churches, especially in tribal districts, in the next six months. The move by the BJP-Shiv Sena-NCP government towards such a law comes after BJP MLAs alleged that tribals were being converted through illegal churches 'built using foreign funding'. They did not specify how many such churches had been built or where the funding came from. They demanded a mechanism to bar converted tribals from availing benefits under welfare schemes meant for Scheduled Castes (SCs) too. BJP's Anup Agarwal claimed that the number of illegal churches in tribal districts such as Palghar and Nandurbar is 'mounting stupendously'. Villages with a population of around 2,000 have half a dozen churches, he claimed. The conversion is done through threats and luring through medical help, he furtehr alleged. In reply, revenue minister Bawankule had said, 'There is a report of the home department on the conversion through allurement and threat, and we have taken cognisance of it... There are orders issued in May 2011 and May 2018 related to the removal of the religious structures. The divisional commissioners would be asked to chalk out plans for the removal of these structures in six months.' This isn't the first time the BJP-led Mahayuti government has sought action against alleged forced religious conversions. In March, chief minister Devendra Fadnavis had advocated the need for a 'love jihad' law in Maharashtra, saying the government had received over 100,000 complaints of such cases. Love jihad is a term used by Hindu nationalists who believe Muslim men are 'luring' Hindu women to marry them and convert them to Islam.
