Safiya Malik

The High Court of Allahabad Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi directed the passport authorities to process and issue a minor child’s passport within four weeks of her mother completing the prescribed formalities and routine verification, subject to there being no legal impediment. The petition, filed on the child’s behalf by her mother, arose from an alleged inaction on the passport application amid a matrimonial dispute between the parents, a criminal case between them, and the father’s refusal to give consent. The Court said a passport may be refused only on the grounds listed in Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, and not for administrative reasons or because of disputes between a minor’s natural guardians.

The writ petition was instituted on behalf of a two-year-old minor girl, represented through her mother, seeking issuance of a passport. The application for issuance of passport was submitted through the mother and registered after completion of formalities under the Passport Act, 1967 and the rules framed thereunder. Despite registration, no decision was taken on the application by the concerned passport authority.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce 25% RTE Quota In Private Unaided Schools, Directs States/UTs To Frame Rules

It was contended that matrimonial disputes had arisen between the parents, resulting in criminal proceedings initiated by the mother against the father and his family members under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the petitioner, solely due to the pendency of these proceedings and the father’s refusal to cooperate or grant consent, the passport authority orally declined to proceed with issuance of the passport.

The petitioner asserted that the continued pendency of the application violated statutory obligations under the Passport Act, 1967 and infringed the minor’s fundamental right to personal liberty. It was further stated that the minor was in the exclusive physical custody of the mother and that there was no prohibitory order passed by any competent court restraining issuance of a passport.

The respondents submitted that the application had not been rejected but that certain documents were sought through a written communication for completion of formalities, and that the application would be processed upon compliance with the same.

The Court examined whether a minor child’s passport application could be kept pending merely due to matrimonial or criminal disputes between parents. It recorded that the right to obtain a passport and to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench observed that “the expression ‘personal liberty’ 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 and also the procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.”

Relying on constitutional jurisprudence, the Court noted that “a passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders,” and clarified that possession of a passport is distinct from the act of travelling abroad.

On the statutory scheme, the Court referred to Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 and recorded that “a passport application can be refused only on the specific grounds enumerated in Section 6 of the Act and on no other ground.” It further stated that parental disputes or pending matrimonial or criminal matters between guardians do not fall within the statutory grounds for refusal.

With reference to the Passport Rules, 1980 and the Passport Manual, the Court observed that “there is no prohibition in the Passport Rules that without any consent of the father, passport cannot be issued to a minor child,” and that Annexure-C specifically addresses situations where consent of one parent is unavailable.

The Bench also recorded that “The authorities do not have a general or discretionary power to deny a passport on other extraneous or administrative grounds. In the present case of a minor, no such conditions exist that would justify rejection of the application. Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal. Therefore, the passport authorities are duty-bound to process and issue the passport once the prescribed formalities are completed and there is no prohibitory order.”

Also Read: Deceitful Means: Marriage Assurance By Already-Married Man Prima Facie Invokes Section 69 BNS; Allahabad High Court

The Court directed that “the respondent authorities shall process and issue the passport of the petitioner forthwith, subject to the completion of routine verification formalities, as per the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and the Passport Rules, 1980 and applicable government notifications.”

“The passport authorities shall ensure that the passport is issued within a period of four weeks from the date the petitioner complies with the procedural requirements through her mother, if there is no legal impediment.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Gaurav Pandey, Advocate (holding brief of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate)

For the Respondents: Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Standing Counsel
A.S.G.I.

Case Title: XXX v. Union of India and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:4166-DB
Case Number: Writ – C No. 9771 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar, Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi