Delhi High Court: In a writ petition to seek direction for the issuance of Police Clearance Certificate (‘PCC’) filed by an Indian national named in two First Information Reports (‘FIRs’) that were filed based on complaints from Enforcement Officers (‘EO’) of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (‘EPFO’), a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. stated that the petitioner’s right to work and freedom of movement must not be unjustly restricted solely on the existence of these FIRs, and directed the respondents to issue a PCC to the petitioner explicitly mentioning the pending criminal case against him as well as the fact that he had complied with the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (‘RPFC’) by making the required deposit.
Background
The FIRs, in the present matter, had been filed on complaints by the EOs wherein it had been alleged that while the petitioner deducted provident fund contributions from the wages of employees working at DMRC and NPL sites, he failed to deposit the same as per the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’).
After the registration of the FIRs, a quasi-judicial enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act was conducted by the RPFC. Vide order dated 28-09-2019, the petitioner and the principal employer were held to be jointly and severally liable to deposit the provident fund contributions as mandated by the EPF Act. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,485,753/- as assessed by the RPFC, which was duly paid by him on 20-03-2019.
The petitioner was aggrieved due to the respondent’s refusal to issue him a PCC, a crucial requirement for applying under the Start-up Visa Programme in Canada, where the petitioner wished to set up a business venture. The petitioner submitted an application dated 15-04-2024 with the Regional Passport Office for the issuance of the said PCC. Another fresh application was filed on 14-05-2024 for the same purpose.
To address the objections of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Trial Court where a criminal case against him was pending and sought directions for issuance of the PCC. However, this request was denied on 26-06-2024 as the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to issue such directions.
Analysis and Decision
The Court carefully considered the facts of the case and noted that the requirement for the PCC stemmed from the visa requirements of the Country where the applicant intended to travel. The Court said that even though PCC was not strictly governed by the Passport Act, 1967 or the Passport Rules, 1980, it found mention as a miscellaneous service to assist Indian nationals who are required to comply with specific requirements of immigration authorities of foreign countries.
The Court said that a PCC essentially serves as an assurance by the State to a foreign country that the applicant is not involved in any ongoing criminal proceedings. However, it was also mentioned that the Regional Passport Office can only issue a PCC if it received a ‘Clear’ Police Verification Report from the relevant authorities.
The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail regarding the FIRs filed against him in 2013 which was subjected to a condition that the petitioner must join the investigation whenever directed by the Investigating Officer. The Court noted that there was no restriction that was imposed by the Trial Court on the petitioner’s travel and that as per the quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the RPFC, the petitioner had fulfilled his liability by making the required provident fund deposits under the EPF Act.
The Court found it evident that the only ground for denying the PCC was the existence of pending FIRs against the petitioner. However, the Court emphasized that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad.
The Court said that even though the Ministry of External Affairs (‘MoEA’) (respondent 1) was correct to point out their obligation to provide accurate information to the foreign authorities, this responsibility did not extend to unjustly curtailing the petitioner’s right to apply for a long-term visa.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s endeavor was related to his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to engage in an occupation or business. The Court said that the petitioner held the constitutional right to pursue any lawful business or trade both within and outside the country as permissible.
Further, the Court opined that even though the State has the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19(6), denying the petitioner a PCC due to mere pendency of FIRs, without any conviction or finding of guilt, constitutes an unreasonable restriction.
The Court stated that the renewal of the petitioner’s passport in 2019 signified that the Passport Authorities did not find any reason at the time to deny him travel privileges. It was said that it would be inconsistent for the same authorities to now refuse to issue a PCC solely on basis of some pending FIRs.
The Court, while disposing of the present matter, found that the rights and interests of the petitioner must be balanced with the respondent’s obligation as a sovereign and directed the respondents to issue a PCC to the petitioner in two weeks, mentioning the pending criminal case against him as well as the fact that he had complied with the RPFC’s order by making the required deposit.
[Amardeep Singh Bedi v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7039, Decided on 01-10-2024]
For Petitioner — Advocate Rajiv Arora, Advocate S.P. Arora
For Respondents — SPC Farman Ali, Advocate Usha Jamnal, Advocate Hussain Adil Taqvi