Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

Consent of Non-Custodial Parent Not Material for Grant of Passport: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Impounding of Minor's Passport

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court has set aside the impounding of a minor's passport amidst a parental custody battle, stating that the consent of the non-custodial parent was not material for the issuance of the passport under the Passports Act, 1967. The court dismissed allegations that the mother had suppressed material information while obtaining the passport.

The case revolved around Dr. Agnidipa Das and her husband Dr. Ranajoy Dutta, who are embroiled in legal disputes concerning the custody and passport of their seven-year-old daughter. Following the separation, Dr. Das had applied and obtained a passport for their daughter, which Dr. Dutta contended was issued based on the suppression of material facts, leading to its impoundment.

Justice Bhattacharyya closely analyzed the materiality of the information allegedly suppressed by Dr. Das. He noted that the core of the dispute lay in whether the information withheld, particularly regarding the consent of the non-custodial parent, was material enough to justify the impoundment of the minor's passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act.

The court observed, drawing from precedents, that the consent of a parent not having custody does not bear materially on the issuance of a passport for a minor. It emphasized that "the alleged suppression of information could not have brought any material benefit to the mother and as such, cannot be a basis of cancellation of the passport on the ground of deliberate suppression."

Justice Bhattacharyya pointed out the discretionary nature of the said provision, stating that not every incorrect or incomplete information automatically leads to passport impoundment. The intent or 'mens rea' behind the non-disclosure should be considered to determine if there was a deliberate attempt to suppress material information.

The judge criticized the hasty decision-making process by the Passport Authority, which did not adequately consider the mother's explanations or the circumstances under which the passport was applied for and issued. The decision was thus deemed cryptic and arbitrary.

Various judgments were cited where the courts held that non-disclosure of a non-custodial parent's consent was not material enough to warrant adverse actions such as impoundment of a passport.

Decision: The court allowed the petition filed by Dr. Agnidipa Das (WPA No. 7360 of 2024), setting aside the order impounding her daughter's passport. Conversely, WPA No. 8033 of 2024 filed by Dr. Ranajoy Dutta seeking further penalties against Dr. Das was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 30th April 2024.

Dr. Agnidipa Das vs. Ranajoy Dutta

Latest Legal News