The girl’s mother had applied for her passport, but the RPO declined to process the application in November 2024 due to objections raised by the father. The parents are currently undergoing divorce proceedings, and the father’s refusal to provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) led to the application being stalled. The mother responded to the RPO’s communication with a declaration explaining the situation.
Bombay: The Bombay High Court has ruled that a minor’s right to obtain a passport and travel abroad cannot be denied solely because of an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the parents. In its judgment, the court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
A Bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna made this observation while granting relief to a student whose passport reissuance was obstructed by her father’s objections, despite her mother having applied for it.
The court, in an order passed on Wednesday and made available on Thursday, instructed the Pune Regional Passport Office (RPO) to issue a passport to a 17-year-old girl within two weeks. It noted that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The girl’s mother had applied for her passport, but the RPO declined to process the application in November 2024 due to objections raised by the father. The parents are currently undergoing divorce proceedings, and the father’s refusal to provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) led to the application being stalled. The mother responded to the RPO’s communication with a declaration explaining the situation.
The High Court asserted that “the valuable constitutional right of the petitioner girl cannot be prejudiced, much less be taken away, merely on a communication issued by her father refusing to give his No Objection Certificate (NOC).”
It highlighted that the minor girl lives with her mother and is an academically bright student who had excelled in her Class 10 examinations. Her outstanding performance earned her an opportunity to participate in a school-organized study tour to Japan.
The court remarked, “In these circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be that the petitioner’s (girl) right to travel abroad by issuance of a passport can in any manner be scuttled and/or taken away by denying her a passport to be issued/re-issued merely for the reason that the father for the only reason that he has disputes with the mother, is not supporting the petitioner’s application by consenting to it.”
Reiterating the significance of personal liberty, the court stated, “Personal liberty as mentioned under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to travel abroad and no person can be deprived of that right except according to the procedure established in law.”
It added, “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 the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The court also observed that in modern times, traveling abroad is no longer a luxury but a necessity.
READ ALSO: “Marriage” Between Minors Declared “Void”: Allahbad High Court
“In contemporary times traveling abroad cannot be considered to be a fanciful affair but has become an essential requirement of modern life,” it said.
It further explained, “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 recognised but made more meaningful.”
The division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advaith Sethna criticized the RPO for its mechanical handling of the case.
“A mechanical approach in this regard by the passport authority cannot be countenanced,” the court stated. It emphasized the need for the provisions of the Passports Act to be implemented while recognizing contemporary requirements.
The court pointed out that the denial of a passport could have severe consequences for the applicant.
“Any action of the Passport Authority in denying the passport would have severe consequences 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,” it noted.
The court clarified that the declaration submitted by the girl’s mother should be considered and processed by the passport authority. It highlighted that the purpose of inviting such a declaration under the Passports Act is specifically for cases involving disputes between the parents of a minor applicant.
READ ALSO: Guidelines for Prosecuting Guardians of Minors Who Drive Without Licence Issued by HC
The bench observed that the girl’s father had not obtained any court order restricting the mother or the daughter from pursuing the passport application.
It further stated, “Except for stating that he refuses NOC, the petitioner’s father has not made out any legal, valid or justifiable ground before the passport authority which could justify denial of the issuance of passport to the petitioner.”
Case Title: Yushika Vivek Gedam Vs. UOI
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
