Introduction:

The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that a minor child’s constitutional right to travel abroad cannot be defeated merely because one parent refuses, or is unavailable, to provide consent for the issuance of a passport. In Riddham Deora v. Union of India, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17014/2026, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the passport authority to issue a passport to a minor who sought to travel abroad for higher studies, holding that the child’s future and career cannot be made dependent upon the “wish, will and desire” of one parent.

The case arose from a situation in which the minor petitioner, acting through his mother, applied for a passport in order to pursue educational opportunities abroad. The passport application, however, was not processed because the consent of the petitioner’s father was not available. The authorities treated the absence of the father’s consent as a technical obstacle to the issuance of the passport.

The petitioner approached the High Court contending that such an approach placed an unreasonable burden upon him. His parents had obtained a decree of divorce in 2022, and, according to the petitioner, his father was not involved in his domestic affairs. The petitioner was residing with his mother, and it was practically impossible for him to secure his father’s cooperation or consent for the passport application.

The case therefore raised an important question at the intersection of family law, passport regulations and constitutional liberty: can a minor child’s opportunity to travel abroad for education be denied merely because one parent does not provide consent, even when the child is living with and under the care of the other parent?

The passport authority defended its position by relying upon the procedural requirements applicable to minors whose parents are separated. It was argued that the relevant form, referred to as Annexure-C, requires the consent of the parent with whom the minor resides and who has custody. According to the authority, the divorce decree produced before the Court was not sufficiently clear regarding custody. In such circumstances, the respondents maintained that the consent of both parents would be necessary.

Justice Dhand, however, examined the material placed before the Court and found that the petitioner was, in fact, living in the custody and care of his mother. The Court also took note of the fact that the father had not initiated any proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the child. This was an important factor in determining the practical and legal position of the mother as the person responsible for the minor’s care.

The Court also considered the purpose for which the passport was sought. The petitioner had passed his Secondary School Examinations with excellent results and wished to go abroad to pursue further studies and build a better future. The High Court refused to treat this aspiration as a matter of mere personal preference or a “fanciful affair.” In the modern world, the Court observed, international education and travel for career advancement have become important aspects of personal and professional development.

The judgment is particularly significant because it places the child’s rights at the centre of the dispute. Rather than treating the passport application as a contest between the mother and father, the Court focused on the consequences of denying the passport to the child. The question was not simply whether one parent’s signature was available, but whether the absence of that consent could be permitted to extinguish or seriously prejudice the minor’s constitutional freedom.

The High Court relied upon the well-established principle that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. A passport is the essential legal document through which a citizen is enabled to cross international boundaries and enter other countries. Without it, the practical exercise of the right to travel abroad becomes impossible.

The Court’s reasoning also reflects the principle that procedural requirements must serve legitimate administrative purposes and cannot be applied so rigidly that they destroy substantive constitutional rights. Where a child is in the care of one parent, the other parent has shown no interest in seeking custody and the child’s travel is for legitimate educational purposes, a technical insistence on obtaining the absent parent’s consent may operate not as a safeguard but as an unreasonable barrier.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the passport authority to issue the passport to the petitioner forthwith, without further delay. The ruling reinforces an important proposition: a child should not become a hostage to parental conflict or non-cooperation when the exercise of a fundamental right and the child’s educational future are at stake.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Rahul Soni, submitted that he had applied for the issuance of a passport because he wished to travel abroad for further education. He contended that he had completed his Secondary School Examinations with excellent academic performance and sought to pursue opportunities that would contribute to his future career and development.

The petitioner explained that his parents had been legally divorced in 2022. Following the divorce, he was residing with his mother, who was responsible for his care and upbringing. According to the petitioner, his father was not interested in his domestic affairs, making it practically impossible to approach him and obtain his consent for the passport application.

The petitioner therefore argued that he could not be compelled to secure the cooperation of a parent who was not participating in his upbringing. Such a requirement, he submitted, would place the entire burden of parental non-cooperation on the child and would effectively allow one parent’s indifference to prevent the child from pursuing educational opportunities.

The core of the petitioner’s case was that his right to travel abroad for education formed part of the broader constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The petitioner argued that a passport is not an ordinary administrative document. It is the instrument through which a citizen is able to exercise the right to leave the country and travel internationally.

The petitioner further contended that his mother’s consent and custody should be sufficient for the purposes of the passport application. He submitted that the factual circumstances demonstrated that he was living under his mother’s care and that there was no active custody dispute between the parents.

The petitioner also relied upon the fact that the father had not initiated any proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody. In the absence of any such claim, there was no basis for treating the mother’s authority to act in the interests of the child as uncertain merely because the divorce decree did not contain a separate and detailed determination regarding custody.

The petitioner urged the Court to adopt an interpretation that protected the welfare and future of the minor rather than one that made his opportunities dependent on the personal attitude of a non-cooperating parent. He submitted that the State’s administrative process should facilitate the child’s legitimate educational aspirations, particularly where there was no allegation that the proposed travel was unlawful or contrary to the child’s welfare.

The passport authority, represented by Advocate Navneet Singh Birkh, opposed the petition on the basis of the applicable procedural requirements. The respondents referred to Annexure-C and submitted that, where parents are residing separately, the consent of the relevant parent having custody of the minor is necessary for processing the passport application.

The authority’s concern was that the divorce decree placed before the Court did not, in its view, clearly determine the question of custody. Since the document did not expressly and unambiguously settle the custody issue, the respondents argued that the consent of both parents was required to avoid future disputes or competing claims.

The respondents thus treated the matter as one involving the proper implementation of passport safeguards applicable to minors. Such requirements are intended to ensure that a child is not taken abroad improperly and that passport authorities do not become involved in family disputes without sufficient documentation concerning parental authority and custody.

The respondents’ position therefore had an identifiable administrative rationale. Passport authorities must act cautiously when applications concern minors, particularly where parents are divorced or living separately. Consent and custody requirements are intended to protect the interests of children and to prevent situations in which one parent unilaterally removes a child from the country despite an existing legal claim or dispute.

However, the petitioner argued that the safeguard could not be converted into an absolute bar. The purpose of requiring parental consent is to protect the welfare of the child, not to permit a non-cooperating parent to indefinitely obstruct the child’s legitimate future. Where the facts show that the child is in the custody and care of one parent and there is no pending custody claim from the other, the procedural mechanism must be applied in a manner consistent with the child’s best interests.

The competing submissions thus required the Court to balance two concerns. The first was the need for passport authorities to follow rules designed to protect minors and prevent unauthorised international travel. The second was the constitutional and personal right of the child to obtain a passport and travel abroad for legitimate purposes.

The High Court ultimately approached the dispute from the perspective of proportionality and practical justice. A procedural requirement that serves a legitimate purpose may still become unreasonable when applied mechanically to circumstances for which the rule was not intended to create an absolute prohibition.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed the writ petition and directed the passport authority to issue a passport to the minor petitioner forthwith, without any further delay. The Court held that the absence of the father’s consent could not be permitted to defeat the petitioner’s constitutional right to travel abroad and pursue a better future.

The Court’s reasoning began with the fundamental position that the future and career of a child cannot be made dependent upon the wish or desire of one parent. A minor who is living with one parent and seeking to pursue legitimate educational opportunities cannot be compelled to approach an uninvolved or non-cooperating parent merely to secure a signature or consent.

The Court examined the divorce proceedings and the factual circumstances relating to the child’s care. It found that the petitioner was living in the custody of his mother. The Court also noted that the father had not moved any application under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the petitioner.

This absence of any custody claim was significant. The Court concluded that the mother was the lawful guardian responsible for the petitioner and could therefore take steps necessary for his welfare and future. The passport authority could not continue to insist upon the father’s consent by treating the absence of an express custody clause in the divorce decree as conclusive against the child.

The judgment gives substantial importance to the welfare and best interests of the minor. Family-related procedural rules must ultimately be interpreted in a manner that promotes the child’s interests. The Court found that the petitioner was academically capable, having passed his Secondary School Examinations with “flying colours,” and that his wish to study abroad was a genuine effort to advance his education and career.

Justice Dhand observed that travel abroad for higher education and professional development cannot be dismissed as a fanciful desire. In an increasingly interconnected world, international education may provide genuine opportunities for academic growth and career advancement. The Court therefore treated the petitioner’s request as connected to a serious and legitimate objective.

The High Court also emphasised the constitutional dimension of the dispute. The right to personal liberty under Article 21 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to travel abroad. The landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India established that personal liberty under Article 21 must receive a broad and meaningful interpretation and that restrictions affecting the right to travel abroad must be supported by a fair, just and reasonable procedure.

The Rajasthan High Court’s approach is consistent with this constitutional principle. The refusal to issue a passport has the practical consequence of preventing a citizen from travelling abroad. For a child seeking international education, the refusal may also have a direct effect on future academic and professional opportunities.

The Court explained that a passport is a unique and essential document for crossing international boundaries. Without a valid passport, a person cannot ordinarily travel to another country. Thus, denying a passport without sufficient legal justification can directly interfere with the practical exercise of the right to travel abroad.

The Court did not suggest that every minor is entitled to a passport regardless of applicable safeguards. Instead, it clarified that the absence of consent from one parent is not, by itself, an absolute ground to deny a passport where the procedural requirements, including Annexure-C, can otherwise be satisfied and the facts establish the authority of the parent with whom the child resides.

The Court specifically held that even if one parent refuses to provide consent, the passport issuing authority can still issue a passport to a minor, provided the required Annexure-C is submitted in accordance with the applicable rules. This interpretation prevents the consent mechanism from being misused as an instrument of indefinite obstruction.

The decision also reflects the broader doctrine that administrative authorities must not apply procedural requirements mechanically. Rules relating to documentation and consent must be interpreted in light of their purpose. If the object is to protect a child from unauthorised removal or conflicting parental claims, the authority must consider whether such a risk actually exists in the individual case.

Here, the father had not sought custody, the child was living with his mother and the purpose of travel was higher education. The Court found no justification for allowing the passport application to remain blocked merely because the father had not given consent.

The Court’s observations concerning the child’s present and future are also noteworthy. It emphasised that the future of a child depends upon the care and opportunities provided in the present. If a child with strong academic potential is prevented from pursuing further education solely because of a procedural obstacle arising from parental circumstances, the consequences may extend far beyond the immediate denial of a passport.

The High Court therefore rejected the idea that a child’s constitutional rights could be made contingent upon the personal relationship between the parents. Divorce, estrangement or non-cooperation between adults should not ordinarily be allowed to undermine the independent rights and welfare of the child.

The judgment also demonstrates that the principles of natural justice and constitutional fairness are relevant to administrative decision-making concerning passports. A technical requirement cannot be treated as an end in itself when its rigid application would produce a result inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the person concerned.

The final direction was unequivocal. The writ petition was allowed, and the passport authority was directed to issue the passport to the petitioner forthwith without further delay.

The ruling is likely to be relevant in similar cases involving minors whose parents are divorced or living separately. It does not eliminate the safeguards applicable to minor passport applications. Nor does it disregard genuine custody disputes or legal orders restricting a child’s travel. Where such disputes or restrictions exist, the passport authority must naturally act in accordance with the relevant law and judicial orders.

However, the judgment makes clear that a minor cannot automatically be denied a passport simply because one parent is absent, unwilling to cooperate or refuses consent. The authorities must examine the actual circumstances, including custody, guardianship, the welfare of the child and the purpose of travel.

Ultimately, the Rajasthan High Court placed the child at the centre of the legal analysis. The Court recognised that constitutional rights belong to the child as an individual and cannot be treated merely as extensions of parental authority. Where the mother is caring for the child, no competing custody claim exists and the child seeks to travel abroad for legitimate educational advancement, the absence of the father’s consent cannot become an insurmountable barrier.

The decision is a strong affirmation that constitutional liberty must have practical meaning. A right to travel abroad would be of little value if a child could be prevented from exercising it solely because an uninvolved parent refuses to provide consent. By directing the immediate issuance of the passport, the Court ensured that procedural formalities did not overwhelm the larger objective of protecting the child’s future, dignity and freedom.