Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court directed the Regional Passport Office, Pune, to issue a passport to a minor applicant, overriding objections raised by her father. The order states the minor's constitutional right to personal liberty and travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Bench, comprising Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, delivered the ruling while disposing of a writ petition filed by the minor through her mother, who acts as her natural guardian.

The petitioner, a 16-year-old student, had applied for the re-issuance of her passport to participate in the "Sakura Science High School Programme" in Japan, having achieved eligibility through academic excellence. Her mother submitted the application on October 28, 2024, but the Regional Passport Office, Pune, refused to process it, citing the lack of consent from the petitioner’s father. The office issued a communication on November 18, 2024, requiring either the father's consent or a court order permitting the issuance of the passport.

The petition outlined ongoing matrimonial disputes between the petitioner’s parents, including multiple legal proceedings, and alleged that the father had objected to the passport application without providing valid reasons. The mother, asserting her custodial rights, submitted a declaration under Annexure C of the passport rules, specifying that no court order prohibited the issuance of a passport to the minor without the father’s consent.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the father’s objections lacked legal merit and that denying the passport would jeopardize the petitioner’s educational opportunity. The respondent’s counsel contended that procedural compliance, including Annexure D requiring the father's consent, necessitated the denial.

The Court observed that the Passport Act, 1967, and its associated rules provide mechanisms to address cases where one parent objects to the issuance of a passport. It stated, “The Passport Authority is bound to consider various circumstances and provisions of law, including declarations made under Annexure C, when evaluating such applications.”

The Court noted that the petitioner’s mother had complied with the requirement by submitting Annexure C, affirming that ongoing matrimonial disputes did not bar the issuance of the passport. The Court recorded that “the petitioner’s father has not obtained any judicial order prohibiting the issuance of the passport nor provided a valid ground for his objection.”

Referring to the constitutional guarantee under Article 21, the Court stated, “The right to travel abroad is a facet of the fundamental right to personal liberty. Such a right cannot be arbitrarily denied, particularly in a case where the petitioner’s mother has provided the requisite declaration.”

The Court recorded that the need for international travel has evolved significantly in modern times, stating, “Travel abroad has become an essential requirement of modern life. Denial of the passport in such cases would result in irreparable harm to the applicant’s opportunities.”

The High Court set aside the impugned communication dated November 18, 2024, issued by the Regional Passport Office. It directed the office to issue the passport under application number PN1070298980424 within two weeks, stating:

(i) The impugned communication dated 18 November, 2024 issued by respondent no. 2 is set aside;

(ii) Respondent no. 2 is directed to issue passport to the petitioner-Ms. Yushika Vivek Gedam under her application No. PN1070298980424 submitted by her mother - the natural guardian;

(iii) The passport be granted to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today in accordance with law.

Case Title: Miss Yushika Vivek Gedam v. Union of India & Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 19042 of 2024

Bench: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna

[View/Download order]