The Bombay High Court has held that the passport authority cannot deny passports to minors citing disputes between parents.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna has observed that in contemporary times traveling abroad cannot be considered to be a fanciful affair but has become an essential requirement of modern life. Such a need to travel, which may be the requirement of a child, a student or an employee, professional or a person from any other strata of the society, has undergone a monumental change. Thus, the right to travel is required to be not only recognized but made more meaningful.
The bench stated that this case is an example of a student being given an opportunity to undertake a study tour by visiting a foreign country. Any action of the Passport Authority in denying the passport would have severe consequence not only adversely affecting the applicant in a given situation, but it may cause irreparable harm to the prospects of the applicant, for any venture she or he intended to undertake. Thus, a mechanical approach in this regard by the Passport Authority cannot be countenanced.
The grievance of the petitioner is against the Regional Passport Officer, who has issued the impugned communication dated 18 November, 2024 informing the petitioner that her passport application dated 28 October, 2024 would not be processed, for the reason that the petitioner’s father has objected for re-issuing passport to the petitioner.
The petitioner’s mother accordingly made an application dated 28 October, 2024 to respondent for re-issuance of her passport, supported by all relevant documents. It was numbered as passport application no. PN1070298980424. By the communication as, the petitioner’s application is refused to be processed on the objection raised by the petitioner’s father.
There are serious matrimonial disputes pending between the petitioner’s father and mother, which has become a matter of concern insofar as the petitioner’s application for issuance/re-issuance of passport is concerned.
The court said that it is well-settled that the expression “person liberty” which occurs in Article 21 of the Constitution includes right to travel abroad and no person can be deprived of that right except according to the procedure established in law. It is held that the procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. The right to travel abroad is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court held that the valuable constitutional right of the petitioner cannot be prejudiced much less be taken away, and merely on the ground as contained in the impugned communication dated 18 November, 2024 issued by the Passport Authority. Further Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 provides for Refusal of passports, travel documents etc. The ground on which the application of the petitioner is not being processed is in no manner whatsoever recognized by Section 6 of the Passport Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there is no warrant in law for respondent to deny the re-issuance of passport to the petitioner when the declaration was submitted by the petitioner’s mother.
Case Details
Case Title: Miss Yushika Vivek Gedam Versus UOI
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19042 Of 2024
Date: 08 January 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Balasaheb G. Ligade
Counsel For Respondent: Shehnaz V. Bharucha
