Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Nancy Nithya, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore, to renew her passport which had expired. The petitioner was married to K. Shivakumar on 16.07.2009, and a child was born from the wedlock. Due to marital discord, the petitioner filed a divorce petition in M.C. No. 174 of 2020, which was pending. The petitioner applied for renewal of her passport on 02.07.2022, but the passport authority refused to renew it on the ground that the petitioner's husband had objected to the renewal. The petitioner contended that the refusal was arbitrary and without any legal basis, as the Passport Act, 1967 does not require the consent of the spouse for renewal of an expired passport. The respondents argued that the objection from the husband raised a dispute regarding the custody of the child and that the matter was sub judice. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and held that there is no provision requiring the consent of the spouse for renewal of a passport. The Court observed that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the passport authority cannot refuse renewal on extraneous grounds. The Court directed the respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, without insisting on any consent from the husband. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Passport Law - Renewal of Passport - Pending Matrimonial Dispute - The petitioner sought renewal of her passport which had expired. The passport authority refused renewal on the ground that the petitioner's husband had objected, citing pending divorce proceedings. The Court held that the Passport Act, 1967 does not require consent of the spouse for renewal of an expired passport. The refusal was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed the passport authority to renew the passport without insisting on any consent from the husband. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Travel - Article 21 - The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Denial of passport renewal without any legal basis infringes upon this right. The Court emphasized that the passport authority cannot act on the basis of objections from a private party without any statutory backing. (Paras 8-10) C) Administrative Law - Writ of Mandamus - Arbitrary Refusal - The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the passport authority to renew the passport, as the refusal was based on extraneous considerations and not on any provision of the Passport Act, 1967. The authority's action was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Regional Passport Officer can refuse to renew a passport on the ground that the applicant's husband has objected to the renewal due to pending divorce proceedings, and whether such refusal is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to renew the passport of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, without insisting on any consent from the husband.
Law Points
- Passport renewal cannot be denied solely on ground of pending matrimonial dispute
- Passport Act 1967 does not require consent of spouse for renewal
- Writ of Mandamus lies against passport authority for arbitrary refusal
