Issuance of Passports to Minor Children in the Absence of Paternal Consent

1. Introduction

On January 15, 2025, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh delivered a significant judgment in Devyani Nitish Bharadwaj (Minor) D/o Shri Nitish Janardan Bharadwaj and Smt. Smita Nitish Bharadwaj v. Union of India and Others (WP No. 403 of 2025, per Justice Vinay Saraf). The petitioners, two minor daughters, faced obstacles in renewing their passports due to lack of consent from their father, who had an ongoing divorce and child-custody dispute with their mother. The Assistant Passport Officer had issued a communication insisting on obtaining court permission before renewing the minors’ passports. The mother, as their natural guardian, challenged this communication, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and a writ of mandamus compelling the passport authority to renew the passports promptly.

The case presented important questions regarding a parent’s (particularly a single parent’s) ability to apply for and obtain passports for their children when the other parent refuses consent, especially in situations where custody proceedings are pending but no explicit prohibitory order exists from a competent court.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court quashed the impugned communication from the Assistant Passport Officer, which had asked the petitioners’ mother to obtain court permission for the passport renewal of her minor children. Relying substantially on the form and guidelines outlined in Annexure “C,” as well as on a precedent from the Bombay High Court (Miss Yushika Vivek Gedam v. Union of India & Ors.), Justice Vinay Saraf held that in the absence of a judicially imposed prohibition, the refusal of paternal consent cannot automatically bar the issuance or renewal of a minor’s passport.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Passport Authority to proceed with the renewal immediately upon receipt of the mother’s declaration under Annexure “C.” The Court also stated that the father may raise objections regarding alleged forgery or false documentation in the ongoing family-court proceedings, but such objections do not itself prevent the Passport Authority from renewing the passports unless a competent court has imposed a prohibitory order.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

One of the central authorities the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered was the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Miss Yushika Vivek Gedam vs. Union of India & Ors. (WP No. 19042/2024). In that case, the Bombay High Court faced a similar fact pattern: a father refused to grant no-objection for his minor child’s passport renewal, and the Passport Authority requested court permission due to paternal objections. The Bombay High Court clarified that wherever no court order prohibits issuing a passport, the mere refusal of one parent should not impede the child’s right to travel, especially if a proper declaration under Annexure “C” recognizes an ongoing custody dispute but notes that no restraining order exists.

The Court also referenced Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 1 SCC 248) to reiterate that the right to travel abroad is a facet of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Thus, any procedure restricting this right must be fair, just, and reasonable.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rested on several key points:

1. Interpretation of Annexure “C”: Under the passport rules, a single parent or guardian can make a declaration (Annexure “C”) if the other parent’s consent is absent. The Court emphasized that this declaration explicitly contemplates situations where a divorce or custody case is pending, but no judicial prohibition has been issued. In such scenarios, the Passport Authority should normally act upon the declaration instead of insisting on consent from the non-applying parent or a court order.
2. Constitutional Right to Travel: Adopting the approach in Maneka Gandhi, the Court recognized the children’s right to travel abroad as an integral aspect of personal liberty. Accordingly, administrative hurdles that arbitrarily or unreasonably impede this right would be unconstitutional.
3. Pending Family Court Dispute: The father’s concerns—potential forgery of documents or the mother’s alleged intention to relocate the children abroad—were deemed more relevant to the ongoing custody proceeding. The judge underscored that unless the family court had issued a specific prohibition against issuing passports to the minors, the Passport Authority could not deny or delay the renewal solely based on paternal refusal.
4. Opportunity for the Father to Seek Relief: The Court provided the father an avenue to pursue prohibitory or injunctive relief before the Family Court if he maintained his belief that the mother was misrepresenting facts or planning to remove the children from the country unlawfully.

3.3 Impact

This judgment clarifies and strengthens the rights of single parents (or parents acting as primary caregivers) to obtain passports for minor children, even under complex custody disputes. It sets an example for other High Courts to follow, reducing the argument that paternal non-consent or suspicion of fraud automatically necessitates a court order.

Many future cases involving unmarried, separated, or divorced parents, where one parent withholds consent, will now find guidance in this ruling. The presence or absence of a direct prohibition from a competent court becomes the decisive factor, rather than routine insistence on the father’s written consent. Additionally, by affirming the constitutional dimensions of the right to travel, it emphasizes that administrative requirements must be narrowly tailored and not unduly burden fundamental rights.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Below is a brief explanation of some of the more intricate legal concepts discussed in the judgment:

• Fundamental Right to Travel (Article 21): The Supreme Court of India has recognized that the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 includes the right to travel overseas. This means the government must have a valid, legally justifiable reason to curtail or restrict travel.
• Annexure “C” Declaration: The passport rules in India allow one parent or guardian to apply for a child’s passport without the other parent’s consent if that other parent is unavailable, unwilling, or there is a pending litigation without a court order prohibiting passport issuance. This declaration provides legal cover to proceed with the application in such circumstances.
• Prohibitory Order: A prohibitory order is any judicial direction or injunction explicitly restricting or forbidding a specific action, such as issuing a passport. Without such an order, an administrative authority cannot arbitrarily deny the passport application.
• Custody Proceedings: In family-law contexts, “custody” determines which parent has legal and/or physical guardianship of the child. If custody matters are pending, it does not automatically prevent a child from obtaining or renewing a passport, absent a direct restriction imposed by the court.

5. Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Devyani Nitish Bharadwaj (Minor) D/O Shri Nitish Janardan Bharadwaj And Smt. Smita Nitish Bharadwaj v. Union Of India underscores the primacy of a child’s right to travel and personal liberty where no explicit prohibitory order exists. It clarifies that maternal (or single-parental) declarations are legally sufficient to allow passport issuance when the other parent unreasonably withholds consent. Although the father’s concerns and allegations are not dismissed outright, they must be pursued through the proper forum (i.e., the ongoing family-court proceedings) rather than automatically halting the passport process.

This judgment strikes a balance: it preserves the right to travel as a fundamental right, upholding constitutional protections under Article 21, while ensuring that the dissenting parent retains the ability to seek further legal remedies if evidence arises suggesting fraud or an attempt to evade custody jurisdiction. In doing so, the High Court offers clear direction to both passport authorities and litigants in similar family disputes, streamlining processes and reiterating constitutional values in the realm of minor passport issuance.