A landmark and rights-protective judgment was handed down by the Bombay high court which said a father cannot stall his minor child from getting a passport by announcing that he will not give his consent. It is on facts that the major battle of parents is forgotten on the ground when children's rights have to take precedence.The case was based on a petition filed by a mother who wanted to obtain a passport for her minor child. She prayed that her husband, estranged spouse of hers, had not given any consent for issuance of a passport for the child without any reasonable cause for doing so. She also pleaded that her husband's denial to give consent was harassment and indirectly affected the child's right to travel and engage in other ventures. The father, who opposed the petition, said his consent was mandatory under the Passport Act, 1967 and accused the mother of trying to alienate the child from him. Observations of High Court The court noted that this is an elementary right of the child to hold a passport as part and parcel of her Articles 21 rights of personal liberty and freedom of movement. The court further ruled that the requirement of parental consent cannot be allowed to become a means of denying such rights, particularly where one parent is being unreasonable. The bench pointed out that even though, generally, both the parents' consents are mandated under the Passport Act, yet the provision could not be given a color to violate the welfare of the minor. It observed that mechanisms have been developed within the law, and that children's rights may not be violated because of parentage conflicts. Court Judgment The Bombay High Court directed the Regional Passport Office to process the minor's application without requiring the father's consent. It held that the mother, being the primary caretaker of the child, is empowered to act in the best interests of the child and that she cannot be defeated by a case of withholding consent without justification over the rights of the child. Implications of the Judgment This judgment has a very important precedence in that it gives precedence to the welfare and rights of minors over the disagreements of parents. It provides clear direction for administrative authorities to balance statutory requirements with the constitutional mandate to uphold individual rights. The legal experts and child rights activists have welcomed the judgment as it further strengthens the protections for children in cases of disputes between parents. The judgment has further underlined the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the interests and fundamental rights of children by affirming that a parent's refusal to consent cannot block a minor's access to essential documents like a passport.