By Varna Srinivasan  

The case revolves around the renewal of the passports of the respondent’s minor daughters amidst a custody battle between the parents. The mother applied for renewal, but the father objected, leading the Passport Office to demand court permission. The petitioners argued for their fundamental right to a passport under Article 21, citing their invitations to Bharat Mahotsav in the UK. The mother submitted Annexure-C, confirming no court prohibition on passport issuance. 

The father’s counsel opposed the plea, alleging false claims and the risk of the children being taken abroad. The court ruled that his objections were irrelevant to passport renewal and ordered the Regional Passport Office to proceed with the renewal and stated that a father’s consent is not required if no prohibitory court order exists. Justice Vinay Saraf referred to Passport Rules, stating a single parent can apply with Annexure-C if the other parent does not consent. 

The court upheld the mother’s right to apply for renewal separately, emphasizing that objections unrelated to passport issuance should be raised before the appropriate family court. By directing the Regional Passport Office to proceed with the renewal, the court reinforced the fundamental right to travel and ensured procedural clarity in similar cases 

[Case Name: X (Minor) D/O Shri Nitish Janardan Bharadwaj And Smt. Smita Nitish Bharadwaj And Others v/s Union Of India]