Introduction:

In the case X (Minor) D/O Shri Nitish Janardan Bharadwaj And Smt. Smita Nitish Bharadwaj And Others v/s Union Of India And Others (Writ Petition No. 403 of 2025), the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a significant legal question regarding the renewal of passports for minor children without the consent of the father. Justice Vinay Saraf ruled that passports can be renewed in such cases if there is no prohibitory order from a competent court, thus emphasizing the importance of the right to travel as part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, represented by their mother, argued that every Indian citizen has a fundamental right to obtain a passport and travel freely under Article 21 of the Constitution. The counsel emphasized that the Supreme Court has held the right to travel abroad as a crucial component of personal liberty. The petitioners, who had achieved several awards, needed valid passports to attend the prestigious Bharat Mahotsava scheduled at the House of Lords and the University of Oxford. The mother submitted the required Annexure-C declaration, which states that passports can be issued without the father’s consent if no prohibitory court order exists. She asserted that the Regional Passport Office’s communication asking for court permission was unwarranted since no such prohibitory order was issued.

Actor Nitish Bharadwaj, the father, strongly opposed the petition, arguing that the application was based on “suspicious” documents. He contended that the Bharat Mahotsava event mentioned by the petitioners had already occurred in 2024 and questioned the authenticity of the claims. He raised concerns that the mother might take the children abroad permanently, bypassing his custodial rights, as the custody dispute was pending before the Family Court in Mumbai. The father maintained that the application was not maintainable since the custody case was already sub judice.

The Regional Passport Office, Bhopal, through its counsel, supported its communication, stating that it had merely followed procedure. It argued that when a passport application is received without one parent’s consent, it must notify the other parent. Upon receiving the father’s objection, the office asked the mother to seek court permission per Ministry guidelines.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Vinay Saraf focused on the primary legal issue: whether a passport can be renewed for a minor child without the father’s consent when no prohibitory court order exists. The court observed that the Passport Rules provide for the submission of Annexure-C by the applying parent, stating that the competent court has not prohibited the issuance of a passport without the other parent’s consent. The court clarified that the Passport Rules do not mandate obtaining the father’s consent or court permission unless explicitly ordered by a competent court.

The court dismissed the father’s objections regarding the event’s authenticity and potential misuse of the passport as irrelevant to the petition’s core legal question. Justice Saraf noted that these concerns could be addressed in the pending custody proceedings before the Family Court in Mumbai. The court also held that procedural objections raised by the Passport Office were baseless, as Annexure-C had already been submitted.

Consequently, the court quashed the communication issued by the Regional Passport Office asking for court permission and directed it to renew the passports of the petitioners. It reaffirmed that in the absence of a prohibitory order from a competent court, a single parent’s application for passport renewal is sufficient under the law.