The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mere existence of pending criminal cases does not disqualify an individual from seeking long-term opportunities abroad. The court directed passport authorities to issue a police clearance certificate (PCC) within two weeks to a man facing pending criminal cases who needs it to apply for a business venture in Canada.
Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized the need to balance the rights of the petitioner with the authorities’ responsibilities. The PCC should clearly state the pending criminal cases against him and acknowledge his compliance with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner’s (RPFC) order regarding a necessary deposit. This will ensure transparency for Canadian authorities when assessing his visa application.
The court pointed out that the sole reason for denying the PCC was the existence of pending FIRs against the petitioner, according to a Delhi Police report. However, the court clarified that having pending criminal cases does not automatically prevent someone from pursuing long-term opportunities abroad.
While the Ministry of External Affairs is obligated to provide accurate information to foreign authorities, this duty should not unjustly limit the petitioner’s right to apply for a long-term visa. The petitioner, an Indian national with a valid passport, had challenged the authorities’ refusal to issue him a PCC needed for Canada’s Start-up Visa Programme.
The petitioner is facing two FIRs from 2013, related to allegations from the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation that he failed to deposit employee provident fund contributions. He has since complied with the RPFC’s order to pay an assessed amount of ₹7.48 lakh in 2019.
His counsel argued that even if the PCC mentions the pending FIRs, it would not hinder his ability to apply for the visa. The court acknowledged that the PCC serves as a statement from the state affirming that the applicant is not involved in any ongoing criminal proceedings.
The court also noted that the regional passport office can only issue a PCC if it receives a ‘clear’ police verification report. In this case, the petitioner has a valid passport and no travel restrictions, and his right to work and freedom of movement should not be unjustly limited due to the pending FIRs.
The court reiterated that under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the petitioner has the right to engage in any lawful business or trade both domestically and internationally. While the state can impose reasonable restrictions on citizens’ fundamental rights under Article 19(6), denying the PCC based solely on pending FIRs constitutes an unreasonable restriction.
Thus, the court concluded that it would be unjust to impose a blanket restriction on the petitioner’s efforts to secure a visa solely due to the existence of pending cases, stating that issuing the PCC would not affect the ongoing criminal proceedings or provide any undue advantage to the petitioner.
