- Case
- YUSHIKA VIVEK GEDAM THR. HER NATURAL GUARIDIAN MOTHER PRERANA. V. GEDAM v. UNION OF INDIA THR. THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 08-01-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Hindu Marriage Act, Passports Act, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Facts: A 16-year-old minor, Yushika Gedam, applied for re-issuance of her passport to attend a science program in Japan. The Regional Passport Officer (RPO) rejected the application because her father objected, citing marital disputes with the mother. The mother had submitted Annexure C, a declaration stating the father's consent was not obtained due to ongoing divorce proceedings, while the RPO insisted on Annexure D, requiring both parents' consent.
Procedural Posture: The minor, through her mother as natural guardian, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court, challenging the RPO's decision.
Issue: Can the Passport Authority deny a minor's passport re-issuance based solely on the father's objection when the mother has submitted Annexure C, declaring the lack of consent due to ongoing marital disputes, and the father has not obtained any court order prohibiting the passport issuance? Does denying the passport violate the minor's fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Holding: No, the Passport Authority cannot deny the passport re-issuance. The High Court set aside the RPO's communication and directed the RPO to issue the passport to the minor within two weeks.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Passport Authority must consider the variety of circumstances in passport applications, including situations where parents are in dispute. Annexure C specifically addresses cases where one parent's consent is not available. The father's objection, without any legal or justifiable ground or a court order prohibiting the passport, was insufficient to deny the minor's right to travel abroad, a fundamental right under Article 21 as established in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India. The Court emphasized that denying the passport would severely affect the minor's opportunity and prospects, and a mechanical approach by the Passport Authority is unacceptable. The Court also noted that Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 does not recognize the father's objection as a valid ground for refusal when Annexure-C is submitted.
