Recently, the Delhi High Court directed the authorities to issue a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC), highlighting the pending criminal cases while ensuring transparency for Canadian visa authorities.
The case involved a request for a PCC despite ongoing criminal proceedings, with the argument that such proceedings should not hinder the right to travel.
The Court observed that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar an individual from applying for a long-term visa, and the petitioner’s compliance with previous legal obligations should be reflected in the PCC issued.
Brief Fact :
The petitioner, an Indian national with a valid passport, is facing two FIRs filed at P.S. Deshbandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi. These FIRs were lodged by Enforcement Officers of the Employees Provident Funds Organization, alleging that the petitioner failed to deposit Provident Fund contributions deducted from employees’ wages at DMRC and NPL sites, in violation of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Following the allegations, a quasi-judicial inquiry was conducted, resulting in an order directing both the petitioner and the Principal Employer to pay a significant amount, which the Petitioner complied with through a demand draft. The petitioner has since filed petitions to quash the FIRs, which are currently pending.
The petitioner seeks a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) necessary for applying to Canada’s Start-up Visa Programme, having submitted applications to the Regional Passport Office. However, the Passport Office has declined to issue the PCC, citing the pending criminal cases. The petitioner approached the Trial Court for directions to the Passport Office, but the request was denied due to lack of jurisdiction. Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner requests a direction for the issuance of the PCC, referencing a Kerala High Court judgment affirming that the pendency of the criminal case does not automatically render an individual ineligible for travel facilities, provided permission has been granted by the relevant court.
Contention of Petitioner:
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner would be content if a similar directive was issued to the respondents in this case. He emphasizes that even if the Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) reflects the pending FIRs against the petitioner, it would still satisfy the requirement for submitting the PCC as part of the visa application process. Consequently, the petitioner’s rights to travel abroad would not be compromised.
Contention of Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent submitted a letter from the Senior Superintendent of the Regional Passport Office outlining an adverse report against the petition. This report notes that the petitioner failed to appear for police verification after applying for a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) for Canada, leading to the rejection of his request. The records indicate that the petitioner is facing pending FIRs for serious offences, and he has not provided any court or No objection Certificate (NOC). the purpose of a PCC is to establish immigration requests. The counsel added that the petitioner acknowledges the existence of criminal proceedings against him.
Further, the counsel states that it is important to note that the exemption under Section 6(2)(f) applies only to passport issuance, and there are no provisions for granting a NOC for a PCC with pending criminal cases. However, a PCC can be issued if the state submits a clear police verification report, confirming to foreign authorities that the petitioner has no ongoing criminal issues, which is crucial for obtaining a long-term visa.
Observation of the Court:
The Court has meticulously evaluated the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, it is observed that “Issuance of a PCC is a miscellaneous service, as defined in Rule 2(d)(iv) of the Passport Rules, 1980, issued by the Passport authorities to confirm the absence of criminal antecedents, primarily for the purpose of long-term visa and immigration requests”. The necessity for a PCC arises from the visa prerequisites established by the foreign jurisdiction to which the applicant seeks to travel. Although the PCC is not explicitly governed by the Passport Act, 1967, or the Passport Rules, 1980, it is recognized as a miscellaneous service intended to facilitate Indian nationals in satisfying specific requirements imposed by foreign immigration authorities.
The Court noted that in the present matter, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail concerning FIRs lodged in 2013, with no travel restrictions imposed by the Trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner possesses a valid passport and a multiple-entry visa for Canada, necessitating the procurement of a PCC for compliance with the Start-up Visa Programme. Further, it was noted that the denial of the PCC is predicated solely upon the existence of pending FIRs. However, it emphasizes that “the mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad”. While the Ministry of External Affairs bears a duty to furnish accurate information to foreign authorities, such obligation must not unjustly infringe upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to apply for a long-term visa.
The Court held that the State may impose reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, the Court finds that the denial of a PCC to the petitioner, based solely on the pendency of FIRs without any conviction or determination of guilt constitutes an unreasonable restriction. Furthermore, the renewal of the petitioner’s passport signifies that the relevant authorities previously found no grounds to restrict the petitioner’s travel privileges. Consequently, the Court concludes that the issuance of the PCC will neither influence the ongoing criminal proceedings nor confer any undue advantage upon the petitioner. The primary function of a PCC is to ensure transparency regarding an individual’s background thus, the petitioner’s right to pursue lawful employment and freedom of movement ought not to be unjustly curtailed merely due to the existence of these FIRs.
The decision of the Court:
The Court holds that the petitioner’s right must be balanced with the respondents’ obligations. The respondents are directed to issue a PCC to the petitioner, clearly indicating the pending criminal case and noting the petitioner’s compliance with the RPFC’s order. This ensures full transparency for the Canadian authorities in evaluating his visa application. The PCC application, as per the Passport Rules, 1980, shall be modified accordingly, and the PCC must be issued within two weeks. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of.
Case Title: MR. AMARDEEP SINGH BEDI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: W.P.(C) 12597/2024
Coram: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rajiv Arora, S.P. Arora
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Farman Ali, Usha Jamnal, Hussain Adil Taqvi