Her plea emphasized that the delay in passport issuance unjustly hindered her ability to travel back to India, her home country. Additionally, the plea highlighted the statutory obligation of the respondents under Section 5 (2) of the Passports Act, 1967, to make a decision regarding her application.
The petition also pointed out that according to clause 8.1 of the Passport Manuals from 2020, changes in gender do not necessitate the submission of a surgical reconstruction certificate. Despite this, the petitioner had submitted one.
The petitioner further clarified she had sought guidance from the Consul (Passport Division), and as of the present date, no further documents were requested from her.
She argued that her right to obtain a re-issued passport was an aspect of her right to self-identification, safeguarded by Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
“The revised passport ensures that the petitioner’s dignity and identity are not put on trial by strangers at an airport when the petitioner boards an airplane back home to see her family. The act of the Respondents in not in issuing her revised passport is a direct assault on her dignity and personhood,” the plea stated.
Source: Barandbench
