Riddham Deora v. Union of India, 2026
A minor's right to travel abroad for education cannot be defeated merely because the father's consent is absent, particularly where the child is in the mother's lawful custody and the applicable passport requirements are satisfied.
Judgement Details
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
22 August 2026
Judges
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner was a minor child who sought issuance of a passport through his mother.
-
The passport authority did not process the application because the father's consent was absent.
-
The petitioner's parents had obtained a divorce decree in 2022.
-
The child was living in the custody of his mother.
-
The father had not sought custody under the Guardians and Wards Act.
-
The petitioner had performed well in his secondary school examinations and wanted to travel abroad for further education.
-
The petitioner contended that requiring him to obtain his father's consent would effectively prevent him from pursuing his educational plans.
-
The passport authority argued that consent requirements applied where separated parents were involved and custody was unclear.
Issues
-
Whether the absence of the father's consent can, by itself, prevent issuance of a passport to a minor who is in the lawful custody of the mother?
-
Whether the minor's constitutional right to travel abroad under Article 21 can be curtailed merely because one parent refuses or fails to provide consent?
-
Whether the passport authority can issue a passport to the minor where the applicable requirements under Annexure-C are otherwise satisfied?
Judgement
-
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition.
-
The Court found that the petitioner was in the custody of his mother and that the father had not sought custody.
-
It held that the child's future and career cannot be made dependent upon the wishes of one parent.
-
The Court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of Article 21.
-
It held that absence of the father's consent could not, in the circumstances, justify denying the minor a passport.
-
The passport authority was directed to issue the passport forthwith without further delay.
Held
-
A parent's refusal or absence of consent does not automatically prevent a minor from obtaining a passport.
-
The right to travel abroad forms part of the constitutional protection under Article 21.
-
A child's educational and career prospects cannot be unnecessarily frustrated because of a dispute or lack of cooperation between divorced parents.
-
Where the mother has lawful custody and the applicable passport requirements are fulfilled, the authority can issue the minor's passport.
Analysis
-
Article 21 and foreign travel: The judgment reinforces the established constitutional principle that personal liberty includes the right to travel outside India.
-
Child's best interests: The Court placed considerable emphasis on the minor's future education and career rather than allowing parental disagreement to become an obstacle.
-
Custody was significant: Since the mother had custody and the father had not sought custody through appropriate legal proceedings, the Court found no justification for treating the father's consent as an absolute requirement.
-
Parental consent is not absolute: The decision indicates that passport requirements for minors should not be mechanically applied where doing so would disproportionately interfere with the child's constitutional rights.
-
Educational opportunity: The Court recognized overseas education as a legitimate contemporary objective rather than a merely fanciful desire.
-
Balancing parental rights and children's rights: The judgment places the child's independent constitutional interests at the centre while still recognizing that applicable statutory and administrative safeguards must be followed.