Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated October 1, 2024, addressed the issue of denying a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC). Justice Sanjeev Narula considered the matter, which involved an individual’s application for the Start-up Visa Programme in Canada. The Court examined the legal and procedural framework governing the issuance of PCCs, particularly in cases where criminal proceedings are pending.

The petitioner, an Indian citizen and proprietor of M/s Bedi & Bedi Associates, faced two FIRs filed under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. These complaints, filed by Enforcement Officers of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, alleged failure to deposit provident fund contributions deducted from employees’ wages. A quasi-judicial inquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act culminated in a 2019 order holding the petitioner liable for INR 7,485,753, an amount he subsequently paid in full.

Despite his compliance and the absence of any court-imposed travel restrictions, the petitioner’s PCC applications were rejected on April 15, 2024, and May 14, 2024, based on adverse reports citing the pending FIRs and the lack of a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The petitioner argued that the denial violated his constitutional rights, particularly under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice a profession or engage in business.

The High Court, upon detailed examination, arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Purpose and Nature of PCCs: The Court described PCCs as a “miscellaneous service” defined under Rule 2(d)(iv) of the Passport Rules, 1980, stating: “The purpose of a PCC is to establish criminal antecedents of an applicant, primarily for long-term immigration requests of foreign countries. Its issuance signifies the absence of criminality or antecedents of an applicant.”

2. Pending Criminal Cases and Procedural Fairness: The Court acknowledged the adverse reports but held that the existence of FIRs alone does not disqualify an applicant from obtaining a PCC. It noted: “Mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad.”

3. Compliance and Judicial Oversight: The petitioner had fulfilled his obligations under the EPF Act by depositing the assessed amount. He had also obtained anticipatory bail, with no restrictions on his travel. Highlighting this, the Court stated: “The Petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail, and no travel restrictions have been imposed by the Trial Court. Moreover, his compliance with quasi-judicial directives reflects no intent to evade due process.”

4. Transparency in PCCs: The Court proposed an approach balancing the petitioner’s rights and the respondents’ obligations, directing that the PCC should include the pending FIRs while confirming the petitioner’s compliance. It observed: “The PCC must provide complete transparency by mentioning the pending criminal cases against the Petitioner, as well as his compliance with the RPFC’s order by making the required deposit.”

5. Fundamental Rights and Administrative Responsibility: The judgment upheld the view that fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) include the right to seek business opportunities abroad. It clarified: “The primary role of a PCC is to ensure transparency about an individual’s background, not to impose blanket restrictions on the basis of pending cases. The rights of the Petitioner must be balanced with the Respondents’ obligations as a sovereign.”

The Court ordered the respondents to issue a PCC to the petitioner within two weeks, explicitly disclosing the pending FIRs and the petitioner’s compliance with the EPF Act. It also instructed that the prescribed PCC application format under the Passport Rules, 1980, be modified to accommodate such disclosures, ensuring both transparency and procedural fairness.

Case Title: MR. AMARDEEP SINGH BEDI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12597/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

[View/Download order]