Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has said that a minor’s right to travel abroad cannot be taken away by denying the minor passport merely for the reason that there is an ongoing matrimonial dispute between parents of the minor.
A bench comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Advaith Sethna said this while hearing a plea filed by the minor through her mother, the natural guardian, against respondent the regional passport officer, who informed the minor that her passport application would not be processed for the reason that her father has objected for re-issuing passport to her.
What was the case of minor petitioner?
The case of the petitioner minor was that serious matrimonial disputes pending between the minor petitioner’s father and mother has become a matter of concern for issuance/re-issuance of passport to her.
The bench, while pulling up the passport authority for adopting a mechanical approach in such cases and saying that the provisions of the Passports Act has to be implemented by effectively recognising contemporary needs, directed the passport authority to issue passport to the minor under her application submitted by her mother within two weeks.
The minor petitioner, who was nominated by her school to attend the said programme on the basis of securing 92% marks in X standard examination, had filed the application for issuance of passport for attending ‘Sakura Science High School Programme’ to be held at Japan, for which the eligibility was of the students from Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools, who have secured over and above 90% marks in X Standard examination.
Person liberty includes right to travel abroad: High Court
The High Court said that the expression “person liberty” which occurs in Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to travel abroad and no person can be deprived of that right except according to the procedure established in law.
“It is held that the procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. The right to travel abroad is a facet of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is certainly entitled to such constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21,” the High Court said.
Travelling abroad cannot be considered to be a fanciful affair: High Court
The bench further said that in the contemporary times travelling abroad cannot be considered to be a fanciful affair but has became an essential requirement of modern life and such need to travel which may be the requirement of a child, a student or an employee, professional or a person from any other strata of the society, has undergone a monumental change.
Right to travel required to be not only recognized but made more meaningful: High Court
“Thus, the right to travel is required to be not only recognized but made more meaningful. This can be achieved and supported by the authorities implementing the provisions of the Passport Act by effectively recognizing such contemporary needs in dealing with passport applications,” the High Court said.
“The present case is an example of a student being given an opportunity to undertake a study tour by visiting a foreign country. Any action of the passport authority in denying the passport would have severe consequence not only adversely affecting the applicant in a given situation, but it may cause irreparable harm to the prospects of the applicant, for any venture she or he intended to undertake. Thus, a mechanical approach in this regard by the passport authority cannot be countenanced,” the High Court added.
