Back
: Minor's Right to Passport Not Conditional on Both Parents' Consent for Education
Jodhpur, – The has ruled that a minor cannot be denied a passport solely because one parent withholds consent, especially when the child seeks to travel abroad for education. The decision, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, affirms that the constitutional right to under includes the , and this right cannot be made hostage to the will of a disinterested parent.
The Case: A Dream of Studying Abroad
Seventeen-year-old Riddham Deora, a bright student who passed his Class X examination with flying colours, applied for a passport through his mother, Anita Deora, to pursue higher studies overseas. The application was rejected by passport authorities on a technical ground: the consent of his father, Mukesh Deora, was missing.
The petitioner’s parents had been embroiled in matrimonial discord. Their marriage was dissolved by the , in , with the mother granted a and the father’s petition for dismissed. Since then, the minor has been in the sole of his mother. The father never sought or even .
Arguments: Law vs. Technical Barrier
Arguing for the petitioner, contended that it was impossible to obtain the father’s consent given the strained relations and lack of involvement in the child’s life. He stressed that denying a passport on such a technicality would irreparably harm the minor’s educational prospects.
Counsel for the passport authorities, , countered that under , consent of one parent is mandatory when parents are separated, but since the divorce decree did not explicitly award , both parents’ consent was required. The authorities argued they had not acted illegally.
Legal Analysis: Right to Travel and the Passport Rules
Justice Dhand examined the matter in depth, noting that the is an integral part of . “No person can be deprived of that right except according to , and that procedure must be , not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary,” the court observed.
The court also referred to a set by the in L. Deepika vs. Union of India (2022), which held that when one parent is unable to obtain consent for reasons explained in a (Annexure C), the passport authority cannot insist on both parents’ signatures. The clarified that the Passport Manual itself provides for such situations, and the authorities should not mechanically reject applications.
Key Observations
“The future and career of the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain dependent upon the wish, will and desire of one of his parents. The valuable constitutional right of the petitioner cannot be prejudiced and must not be allowed to be taken away, merely because the consent of his father is not there.”
“Children are not property of their parents; rather they are independent individuals under the law. Parents are guardians and not owners.”
“In the contemporary times travelling abroad cannot be considered to be a fanciful affair but has become an essential requirement of modern life… any action of the passport authority in denying the passport would have severe consequence.”
The Final Decision
Allowing the , the court directed the passport authorities to issue the passport to Riddham Deora forthwith, without any further delay. The judgment underscores that a minor’s right to education and trumps rigid bureaucratic requirements, especially when one parent has abandoned responsibility. The ruling sets a clear : a child’s future cannot be mortgaged to a parent’s consent for travel.
