Passport News: The woman and her two sons’ passports were previously denied by the Passport Authority because the woman’s brother-in-law had objected to the address they had provided on their application. However, the Bombay High Court has now ordered the Regional Passport Officer in Mumbai to renew the woman and her sons’ passports.
Fundamental Right Emphasized
Delivering the judgement, Justices AS Chandurkar and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated, “A person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport.”
Address Exclusion from Ownership
The court did clarify that the petitioners’ address on the passport did not grant them any ownership rights over the aforementioned property, nor would it in any way harm the brother-in-law. However, the court noted that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to travel abroad as a fundamental right. As a result, this right cannot be taken away from anyone other than in accordance with the legal process outlined in the Passports Act of 1967.
Exception to Alternate Remedy Rule
“Since the Petitioners have filed the present Petition to enforce the fundamental right to travel abroad, which is guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and have challenged the said Orders refusing renewal of passport to them as being without jurisdiction, the present Petition clearly falls within the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy,” it observed.
Passport Renewal Denial Over Property Dispute
Rajinder Kaur’s brother-in-law Gurvinder Chanan Singh Layal had objected to the address they had provided on their passport applications, so the Passport Authority had declined to renew the passports of the mother and her two sons. Layal had argued that there was an ongoing property dispute regarding the address, which belonged to a room that was registered in his name. The appellants’ title rights will not be conferred upon them by reference to the address in their passports, the court clarified, thereby protecting their right to the property. Without addressing the merits of Respondent No. 3’s objection, the court ordered Respondent No. 2 to grant the petitioners passports in compliance with the Passports Act and the Passports Rules.
Arbitrary Denial and Lack of Jurisdiction
The Passport Authority’s justification for the denial was deemed by the court to be “arbitrary and without jurisdiction.” Additionally, it noted that there is no clause in the Passports Act that permits rejection on the previously mentioned grounds. “Needless to state that indication of the Petitioners’ address in the passport would not, by itself, confer on them any right in respect of the said property mentioned therein, and such inclusion would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Respondent No.3 in other pending proceedings,” the bench added.
Keep watching our YouTube Channel ‘DNP INDIA’. Also, please subscribe and follow us on FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, and TWITTER
