Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal to issue passport says Allahabad High Court

Facts and Background

The case involved a minor child aged about 2 years at the time of application whose mother applied for her passport on January 17, 2025. Despite completing all required formalities, the passport authorities kept the application pending indefinitely. The reason cited was the ongoing matrimonial dispute and criminal cases between the child's parents (the natural guardians). The authorities essentially treated these parental conflicts as a ground to withhold progress on the minor's passport application. The mother approached the Allahabad High Court via a writ petition, seeking directions for expeditious processing and issuance.

Observations of the Court 

Section 6 is Exhaustive and Mandatory  

Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, provides the complete and exclusive list of grounds on which a passport authority may refuse to issue a passport or travel document.  

   - These grounds include matters like:  

     - Sovereignty and integrity of India being prejudiced  

     - Friendly relations with foreign states  

     - In the interests of general public  

     - Presence of applicant in India required in public interest  

     - Pending criminal proceedings against the applicant   

The Court held that passport authorities do not have any general discretionary power or authority to refuse/deny/withhold a passport on extraneous, non-statutory, or administrative grounds beyond those explicitly listed in Section 6. Any refusal must be strictly within these enumerated grounds, and reasons must be recorded in writing.

No Power to Deny on Administrative Considerations  

The authorities cannot invoke vague "administrative reasons", policy preferences, internal guidelines that contradict the Act, or convenience to block an application.  The Court stressed that such actions violate the statutory scheme and amount to arbitrary executive overreach.

Parental/Matrimonial/Criminal Disputes Between Guardians — Not a Valid Ground  

In the specific context of a minor child, pending matrimonial disputes, parental conflicts, or criminal matters between the parents/natural guardians do not fall under any of the Section 6 grounds. These are extraneous factors and cannot justify keeping the minor's passport application pending or denying it.  

The Court further observed: The authorities do not have a general or discretionary power to deny a passport on other extraneous or administrative grounds. In the present case of a minor, no such conditions exist that would justify rejection of the application. Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal.

Fundamental Right under Article 21  

Relying on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction must be by a procedure established by law, fair, just, and reasonable — not arbitrary or based on non-statutory factors.  

For a minor, this right cannot be prejudiced merely because the parents are in dispute.

Reliance on Other Precedents  

The Court referred to similar rulings by other High Courts, including:  

Delhi High Court in Smita Maan v. Regional Passport Officer (2023) — Passport Manual provisions must be applied flexibly.  Bombay High Court in Yushika Vivek Gedam v. Union of India (2025) — A minor's right to travel cannot be blocked due to one parent's objection in matrimonial discord. Madhya Pradesh High Court in Devyani Nitish Bharadwaj v. Union of India (2025) — Similar principle. It also noted the Supreme Court's recent observations in **Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025) about not converting procedural safeguards into rigid barriers.

Conclusion 

The passport authorities were directed to process and decide the minor's application expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the Passports Act, 1967 — without considering the parental disputes as a ground for delay or denial. No fresh hurdles could be created on non-statutory bases.

This judgment strengthens the principle that passport authorities are creatures of statute — they must act strictly within Section 6 and cannot expand refusal grounds through administrative fiat. It is particularly protective of minors' rights in family dispute scenarios and discourages passport offices from acting as informal arbiters in matrimonial/criminal matters between parents.