Child can’t be denied fundamental right to a passport due to disputes between parents: HC

Bombay High Court ruled that a child's right to travel cannot be denied due to parental disputes, ordering a passport for a 16-year-old selected for a program in Japan.

MUMBAI: The right of a child to travel abroad cannot be taken away by refusing passports merely on the grounds of disputes between its parents, the Bombay High Court said on Wednesday. The court ordered authorities to issue a passport to a 16-year-old from Pune who has been selected for an educational program in Japan. The authorities had denied her passport as her father had not given his consent for issuance of the passport due to disputes with his estranged wife.

Child can’t be denied fundamental right to a passport due to disputes between parents: HC

“It cannot be that the (16-year-old’s) right to travel abroad can in any manner be scuttled and/or taken away by denying her a passport merely for the reason that the father, who has disputes with her mother, is not supporting the petitioner’s application by consenting to it,” said the division bench of justice GS Kulkarni and justice Advait Sethna.

The bench added that the right to travel abroad is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the 16-year-old was certainly entitled to the right.

The teenager, a student of a Kendriya Vidyalaya in Pune, was selected for a study program in Japan and had therefore applied for a passport to the Regional Passport Officer at Pune. The authority, however, on November 18, 2024, informed her that her application cannot be processed for want of consent of her father and also because her father had objected to it.

This prompted the student to file a petition through her mother, stating that since she and her husband were engaged in a matrimonial litigation, she had submitted a declaration in Annexure C, which enables custodial parents involved in matrimonial disputes to apply for passports of their children. The declaration, she claimed, specifically stated that there was no order prohibiting her or her minor daughter from applying for a passport.

The bench found force in the contentions and upheld the minor’s claim for passport, noticing that there was no reason for the passport officer to refuse to issue the passport when she had submitted a declaration in Annexure C and when there was no prohibiting court order.

“We thus find that such valuable constitutional right of the petitioner cannot be prejudiced much less be taken away, and merely on the ground as contained in the communication dated November 18, 2024,” the bench said, holding that the refusal was untenable.

The court also noted that the father had not made out any legal, valid or justifiable ground, which could have justified denial of passport to the girl.