No Consent From Father? Allahabad High Court says minor’s Passport Can Still Be Issued

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the passport authorities to issue a passport to a two-year-old minor girl, holding that matrimonial or criminal disputes between parents cannot be used to indefinitely delay or deny a minor’s fundamental right to obtain a passport.

The writ petition was filed by the minor through her mother after the Regional Passport Office, Lucknow, allegedly failed to take a decision on the passport application despite completion of all statutory formalities. The application had been submitted in January 2025 but, according to the petitioner, no decision was communicated for several months.

The delay was attributed to ongoing matrimonial discord between the child’s parents. The mother had lodged an FIR against the father and his family members under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, and 406 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was contended that solely due to the pendency of this criminal case, the passport authorities had orally declined to process the application. The petitioner also pointed out that the father was unwilling to grant consent for issuance of the passport because of the dispute.

Before the high court, the petitioner argued that the right to obtain a passport flows from the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and that a minor child could not be made to suffer because of conflicts between parents. It was further argued that the Passport Act, 1967 does not permit refusal of a passport on the ground of matrimonial disputes between guardians.

During the hearing, court sought an explanation from the passport authorities. In response, the authorities stated that the application had not been rejected and that a letter had been issued asking the petitioner to appear before the office with certain documents to complete the required formalities. The authorities submitted that the application would be processed in accordance with law once compliance was ensured.

After examining the record, the division bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that the central question was not merely procedural compliance but whether the passport application of a minor could be kept pending only because one parent was not cooperating due to matrimonial discord. 

Court noted that the right to obtain a passport and the right to travel abroad are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and reiterated in recent decisions.

The bench emphasised that Section 6 of the Passport Act exhaustively lists the grounds on which a passport application can be refused, such as national security concerns, pending criminal proceedings against the applicant, or specific court orders restricting travel. Parental disputes, court held, do not find mention among the statutory grounds for refusal.

The judges also examined the Passport Rules, 1980 and the Passport Manual, which specifically provide a mechanism for issuing passports to minors even where one parent does not consent. The rules permit submission of a declaration under Annexure-C by the applying parent, stating that no court order prohibits issuance of a passport and that the child is in their custody. Court observed that there is no legal requirement mandating consent of both parents in every case, nor is there a requirement to obtain prior court permission in the absence of a prohibitory order.

Relying on decisions of the Delhi, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, the bench held that a minor’s welfare and constitutional rights cannot be held hostage to parental acrimony. A mechanical or rigid approach by passport authorities, it said, would amount to arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty.

Concluding that there was no legal impediment to issuance of the passport, court directed the passport authorities to process and issue the minor’s passport within four weeks, subject to routine verification and completion of formalities by the mother. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Poem Jaiswar vs. Union Of India And Another

Order Date: January 7, 2026

Bench: Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi