By Pradyumna Satish\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u202f\u00a0The petitioner, Ms. Yushika Gedam, is a minor who is pursuing higher secondary education. She is seeking the re-issuance of her passport to attend an educational program in Japan. The petitioner\u2019s parents, Mr. Vivek Gedam and Mrs. Prerana Vivek Gedam, were married in 2006 and have a daughter, Yushika, born in 2008. However, the parents are embroiled in a marital dispute, with the mother filing a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in 2015 and seeking maintenance. The father also filed for divorce, but his petition was dismissed in September 2023.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petitioner\u2019s school nominated her for a program in Japan based on her excellent academic performance. To participate, she needs a valid passport, which her mother applied for on October 28, 2024. However, the passport office refused to process the application because the father did not sign the application and raised objections. The mother submitted a declaration explaining the marital dispute and confirming that no court order prohibited the issuance of the passport without the father\u2019s consent. Despite this, the passport office asked for the father\u2019s consent. After the father objected to the issuance, the passport office issued a communication refusing to process the application, leading the petitioner to file the present petition seeking relief. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u202f\u00a0The Court affirmed that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which encompasses personal liberty. This right cannot be denied except through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law, and not through arbitrary or oppressive means.\u202f\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court emphasized that traveling abroad has become an essential part of modern life, whether for students, professionals, or others. The right to travel should be recognized and supported by authorities, especially when it involves important opportunities like a study tour. Denying a passport in such cases could severely impact the applicant\u2019s future prospects, and such a mechanical approach by the Passport Authority is not acceptable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court emphasized that the petitioner\u2019s fundamental right to travel should not be unjustly hindered or denied. It observed that the Passport Authority’s refusal to process the petitioner’s passport application was not supported by any valid grounds under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, which regulates the refusal of passports. The Court further highlighted that the declaration submitted by the petitioner\u2019s mother, in accordance with the required procedures, provided sufficient justification to proceed with the passport application. Given these circumstances, the Court found that there was no legal basis for the Passport Authority to deny the re-issuance of the passport, reinforcing that such decisions must align with legal provisions and not be influenced by irrelevant or unjustified reasons. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court ruled that the refusal of consent by the father (or any parent) of a minor child\u2019s passport application cannot not automatically prevent the minor child from procuring one. the father\u2019s refusal to consent was deemed insufficient to prevent the minor\u2019s right to travel.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n