Matrimonial Disputes Between Parents Do Not Negate A Minor's Right To A Passport: Allahabad High Court - 2026-01-07

A Minor’s Passport Should Not Be Held Hostage by Parental Discord, Rules Allahabad High Court

In a significant reinforcement of constitutional liberty, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that a minor child’s fundamental right to travel should not be hindered by the ongoing matrimonial or criminal disputes of their parents. The bench, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, delivered a firm message to passport authorities: bureaucratic inertia caused by parental acrimony is an unacceptable violation of a child's rights.

The Backdrop: A Child’s Right vs. Parental Conflict

The case involved Poem Jaiswar, a two-year-old minor represented by her mother, who moved the High Court via a writ petition seeking a mandate for the issuance of a passport. The child’s application, filed in January 2025, had remained in limbo at the Regional Passport Office in Lucknow.

The root of the stall? The child's parents were embroiled in a bitter legal battle, including criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. While the mother attempted to facilitate the passport process, the father refused to provide the necessary consent, causing the passport authorities to effectively halt the application—a move the petitioner argued was a denial of the minor's right to movement under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the right to a passport is an intrinsic facet of personal liberty. They contended that a minor should not suffer the consequences of their parents' marital disputes, and that the continued inaction by the authorities was in violation of the PASSPORT ACT , 1967.

Conversely, the state-respondents maintained that they were merely seeking compliance with procedural formalities. They argued that the application was not rejected, but held for want of documentation—specifically, the required consent, which was missing due to the strained relations between the parents.

Legal Analysis: Liberty Over Bureaucracy

The Court’s analysis relied on a robust interpretation of Article 21. Citing the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , and the recent Supreme Court observations in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India , the Court underscored that the right to travel is a prerequisite for exercising freedom of movement.

The Court drew a crucial distinction between legal safeguards and "rigid barriers." It clarified that the * PASSPORT ACT , 1967 and the associated Passport Rules, 1980* provide specific mechanisms—such as the Annexure-C declaration—to address situations where the consent of one parent is unavailable.

"The passport authorities cannot sit over an application indefinitely on the basis of unsubstantiated objections or delay formal decision-making beyond reasonable bounds," the Court remarked, noting that the law does not empower the state to deny a citizen a passport on the ground of parental disagreement.

Key Observations

• On the Nature of the Right: "Right to obtain a passport and travel abroad is a facet of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be arbitrarily denied on account of parental disagreements."
• On Procedural Fairness: "When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed."
• On Statutory Compliance: "There is no prohibition in the Passport Rules that without any consent of the father, passport cannot be issued to minor child... The statutory declarations under Annexure-C specifically provide to address the situation where one parent is unavailable or refuses consent."
• On Judicial Intervention: "A mechanical approach in this regard by the Passport Authority cannot be countenanced."

The Verdict: Processing the Future

The Allahabad High Court allowed the petition, directing the respondent authorities to process and issue the passport for the minor child within four weeks of completing the routine verification formalities. By validating the use of the Annexure-C affidavit in cases of parental non-cooperation, the Court has provided a clear roadmap for authorities to handle such disputes in the future, ensuring that the child’s prospects are not collateral damage in the fights of their parents.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder that administrative agencies are public servants, not arbiters of family law, and that a child's legal rights remain paramount regardless of domestic conflict.