Father's refusal to consent cannot block minor's right to passport: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday said that a father’s refusal to consent cannot block a minor’s right to a passport..A Bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna made the observation while allowing a plea filed by a student, who was unable to obtain her passport due to objections raised by her father, despite her mother’s application for its reissuance.“It cannot be that the petitioner’s 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,” the Court said.Hence, it directed the passport authority to reissue a passport to the 16-year-old Kendriya Vidyalaya student nominated for a student exchange programme in Japan..The student had initially been issued a passport in 2018, but when her mother applied for its reissuance in 2023 for a study programme, the Regional Passport Office in Pune rejected the application. The refusal was based on the father’s objection to the reissuance of the passport despite the mother providing a no-objection certificate. The office requested either the father’s consent or a court order permitting the reissuance..The Court noted that the passport authorities failed to consider the requisite declaration in Annexure C to the main Form, which had been signed by the petitioner’s mother, consenting to the reissuance. Instead, the authorities focused on the objection raised by the father, who had initially given consent under Annexure D but later withdrew the same. Annexure C pertains to the consent of either parent for renewal while Annexure D is used when both parents provide their consent. In this case, the mother had already provided her consent under Annexure C while the father had objected to his initial consent given under Annexure D.The Court also observed that in present times, the right to travel should not only be recognized but should also be meaningful. “We may also observe that in the contemporary times traveling abroad cannot be considered to be a fanciful affair but has became an essential requirement of modern life. Such 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 said..It also noted that the present case involved a student being given an opportunity to undertake a study programme 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 Court underscored.It also noted that the father had not filed any legal proceedings or obtained any court order to restrict the issuance of the passport. Hence, the Court proceeded to direcrt the passport authority to issue passport to the petitioner within two weeks..Advocate Balasaheb G Ligade appeared for the petitioner.Advocate Shehnaz V Bharucha appeared for Union of India and passport authority..[Read Order]