Introduction:

In the case of Yushika Gedam vs Union of India [Writ Petition 19042 of 2024], the Bombay High Court highlighted the growing importance of the right to travel abroad, recognizing it as an essential requirement of modern life. A division bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna chastised the Passport Authority for refusing to re-issue a passport to a minor girl based on objections raised by her estranged father. The girl, a bright student from Kendriya Vidyalaya, had been invited to participate in an educational tour to Japan, which was sponsored by her school. The Court underlined the monumental societal shift that has made international travel a necessity, particularly for students seeking global exposure.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Balasaheb Ligade, contended that the denial of the passport on the father’s objection was arbitrary and detrimental to the child’s educational prospects. It was argued that the mother had provided the requisite consent in Annexure C, as required under the Passport Act, and the father’s objection, driven by personal disputes, should not outweigh the child’s welfare and aspirations.

On behalf of the Passport Authority, Advocate Shehnaz Bharucha argued that the father’s initial consent under Annexure D was subsequently withdrawn, and his objection needed to be considered in line with procedural requirements. The Passport Authority maintained that both parents’ consent is often sought to ensure compliance with the statutory framework and to avoid legal complications arising from custody disputes.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bombay High Court delivered a strong rebuke to the Passport Authority for adopting a mechanical approach, which overlooked the broader implications of denying the passport. The Court observed that in contemporary times, travelling abroad is no longer a luxury but a necessity that fulfils educational, professional, and personal aspirations. Highlighting the monumental changes in societal norms, the bench emphasized that denying the petitioner her right to travel could irreparably harm her prospects.

The bench pointed out the distinction between Annexures C and D under the Passport Act. Annexure C allows for the consent of either parent, while Annexure D requires the consent of both parents. In this case, the petitioner’s mother had provided her consent under Annexure C, fulfilling the statutory requirement. The father’s objection, stemming from marital discord with the mother, could not override the child’s right to travel and educational development.

The judges further stated that the petitioner had earned the opportunity to participate in a prestigious study tour due to her academic excellence, and denying her a passport would unjustly penalize her for reasons beyond her control. The Court clarified that the Passport Authority’s role is to facilitate and not hinder legitimate applications, especially when all procedural requirements have been met.

With these observations, the Court directed the Passport Authority to reissue the petitioner’s passport within two weeks. It stressed that the petitioner’s right to travel, as an essential modern need, must be upheld to support her and personal growth.