The Allahabad High Court, while dealing with a case where a minor girl was denied issuance of a passport on the ground of matrimonial dispute between her parents, has held that a minor child’s passport application cannot be withheld or kept pending indefinitely merely because of ongoing matrimonial or criminal disputes between the parents.
Terming such action as a violation of the minor’s constitutional rights, a Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi directed the passport authorities to issue the passport of the minor girl, Poem Jaiswar, within four weeks after completion of routine verification formalities, subject to there being no legal impediment. The Court directed that the passport be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, the Passport Rules, 1980, and applicable government notifications, after the petitioner’s mother completes the required procedural formalities.
As per the facts of the case, the passport application for the two-year-old minor was submitted by her mother. However, due to the father’s refusal to give consent and the pendency of a criminal case lodged by the mother against the father and other family members under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Mahila Thana, Jaunpur, the concerned passport authority orally declined to proceed with the issuance of the passport. The core issue before the Court was whether a minor’s passport application could be kept pending solely on account of matrimonial or criminal disputes between the parents. While examining this issue, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Bench held that pending matrimonial or criminal disputes between parents do not constitute a valid ground for refusal of a passport under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967. The Court further clarified:
“It is well-settled that the expression “person liberty” in Article 21 of the Constitution includes right to travel abroad and no person can be deprived of that right except according to the procedure established in law and also the procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.”
The High Court emphasized that the Passport Rules already contain provisions to deal with situations involving parental discord, and the rights of a minor cannot be crushed merely due to non-cooperation by one parent.
The Court clarified that the freedom to travel abroad is an integral component of the right to life and personal liberty, and any administrative measure that interferes with this right must satisfy the standards of fairness, reasonableness, and absence of arbitrariness.
In the order, the Court also referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Devyani Nitish Bharadwaj and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, observing that while statutory compliance is important, authorities must not create undue barriers that frustrate the fundamental rights of minors.
Clarifying the legal position, the Court found that a passport is merely a civil document and its issuance does not automatically grant permission to travel abroad, therefore, unfounded apprehensions regarding its issuance are unjustified. Concluding the matter, the High Court held that the rights of a minor cannot be made “hostage” to the disputes between parents.
Case: Poem Jaiswar vs Union Of India And Another
Date of Order: 07.01.2026
See Order: Poem Jaiswar vs Union Of India And Another
