Travelling Abroad Not Fanciful But Essential In Today's Times, Right To Travel Should Be Made More Meaningful: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday while emphasising that travelling abroad has become an essential requirement of modern life, held that the right to travel must not only be recognised but also be made more meaningful.

A division bench Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna made the observations while pulling up the Passport Authorities for refusing to re-issue a passport to a minor girl, who wanted to visit Japan for an educational event sponsored by her school. The bench noted that the authorities denied re-issuing a passport to the girl as her father, who is entangled in a marital dispute with her mother, wrote a letter objecting to the same.

The judges emphasised on the issue of travelling abroad and the 'monumental change' that society has undergone, which has made travelling abroad necessary.

"In the contemporary times traveling abroad cannot be considered to be a fanciful affair but has became an essential requirement of modern life. 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. Thus, the right to travel is required to be not only recognised but made more meaningful," the judges said.

This, the judges explained can be achieved and supported by the authorities implementing the provisions of the Passport Act by effectively recognising such contemporary needs in dealing with passport applications.

"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 bench opined.

The judges noted that the passport authorities failed to consider the requisite declaration in Annexure C to the main Form, which was signed by the girl's mother but they considered the objection of the father, in respect of declaration in Annexure D to the main form.

Annexure C is a consent of either parent giving consent for renewal of passport and Annexure D is when both parents give consent.

In the instant case, the bench noted that the girl's mother had already given her consent under Annexure C while the father objected to his consent given initially in Annexure D.

"The petitioner is a bright student having secured outstanding marks in the X Standard examination, which has qualified her to be eligible to be selected to participate in the study tour visiting Japan, being undertaken by Kendriya Vidyalaya. In these circumstances, in our opinion, considering the well-settled law, it cannot be that the petitioner's right to travel abroad by issuance of a passport can in any manner be scuttled and/or taken away by denying her a passport to be issued/re-issued merely for the reason that the father for the only reason that he has disputes with the mother, is not supporting the petitioner's application by consenting to it. Also the petitioner's mother has submitted a declaration in Annexure-C, which is now required to be considered and processed by the authorities," the bench said.

With these observations, the judges ordered the authorities to re-issue a new passport to the petitioner girl, within two weeks.

Appearance:

Advocate Balasaheb Ligade for the Petitioner.

Advocate Shehnaz Bharucha represented Passport Authority.

Case Title: Yushika Gedam vs Union of India (Writ Petition 19042 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment