The Delhi High Court directed for the issuance of the Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) as the Denial of the PCC due to mere Pendency of FIRs under the Employee Provident Fund Act, 1952 constitutes unreasonable restriction. The Petitioner, Amardeep Singh Bedi is an Indian National having a valid Indian Passport bearing No.Txxxxxx2 (masked for privacy concerns) issued by the Regional Passport Office in Delhi, India. This passport has been renewed and is valid up to 01st May, 2029. Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now The Petitioner, with his proprietary concern, M/s Bedi & Bedi Associates, is currently facing two FIRs which were registered at P.S New Delhi.

These FIRs were filed based on complaints from Enforcement Officers of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, alleging 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 in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.  Post Registration of the FIRs, a quasi-judicial enquiry u/s 7A of the Employee Provident Fund Act (EPF Act) was conducted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (North). Later it culminated in an order dated 28th Sep, 2019 under Section 7A of the EPF Act that both the Petitioner and the Principal Employer were jointly and severally liable to deposit the PF contributions as mandated by EPF Act and was directed to deposit a sum of INR 7,485,753/- as assessed by the RPFC.

The Petitioner duly paid the amount through a demand draft and later the petitioner filed petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIRs, which was pending before the court. Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now In light of the aforenoted background, it was stated that the Petitioner’s grievance stemmed from the Respondents’ refusal to issue a Police Clearance Certificate, which was a crucial requirement for applying under the Start-up Visa Programme in Canada, where the Petitioner intended to set up a business venture. According to Canadian Visa Regulations, an applicant must submit a PCC from their country of residence to set up a business in Canada following which the Petitioner submitted an application dated 15th April, 2024 with the Regional Passport Office for the issuance of PCC which led to fresh application dated 14th May, 2024 for the same purpose. In addressing the objections of the Respondents, the Petitioner approached the Trial Court seeking directions to the Regional Passport Office for the issuance of PCC which was denied noting lack of Jurisdiction to issue such directions. In view of which Instant Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking direction for the issuance of the PCC. Mr. Rajiv Arora, relied upon various decisions that were similar to that of the issuance of PCC, particularly upon a Judgment by the Kerala High Court dated 16th September, 2021, passed in W.P.(C) 17201/2024 titled “Siju v. Regional Passport Officer”

Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now Mr Arora submitted that the Petitioner would be satisfied in case a similar direction is issued to Union of India & Anrs, the Respondents in the case, also clarified that even if the PCC indicated the pending FIRs against the Petitioner, he would be able to fulfill the requirement of submitting the PCC and apply for the Visa and the Petitioners right to travel abroad would not be affected. Mr. Farman Ali, SPC representing Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2 handed over the copy of the Letter issued by Senior Superintendent, Regional Passport Office, Ministry of External Affairs which outlined an ‘adverse’ report against Petitioner. The Court has carefully considered the circumstances of this case. 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 requirement for such PCC stems from the Visa requirements of the country where the applicant intends to travel. Thus, even though the PCC is not strictly governed by the Passport Act, 1967, or the Passport Rules, 1980, it finds mention as a miscellaneous service to assist Indian nationals who are required to comply with specific requirements of the immigration authorities of foreign countries. The purpose of the PCC, as explained, is to indicate that the applicant does not have a criminal record, essentially serving as an assurance by the State to a foreign country that the applicant is not involved in any ongoing criminal proceedings.

However, it was stated that the Regional Passport Office can only issue a PCC if it receives a ‘Clear’ Police Verification Report from the relevant authorities. In the present case the Petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with the FIRs and the condition was that the Petitioner must join the investigation whenever directed. Notably there was no restriction imposed by the Trial Court on the Petitioner Travel. It is also relevant that, aside from these two FIRs, the Petitioner has no other criminal cases against him. Moreover, as per the quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by the RPFC, the Petitioner has fulfilled his liability by making the required provident fund deposits under the EPF Act. Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now Furthermore, the Petitioner holds a valid passport, which was renewed until 2029. He also possesses a valid multiple-entry Visa for Canada, allowing him entry into that country. Current concern arises from the specific requirement under Canada’s Start-up Visa Programme, which requires the submission of a PCC from the applicant’s country of residence. In light of the facts disclosed by the Respondent, it was observed that the sole ground for denying the PCC was the existence of pending FIRs against the Petitioner, as per the report of Respondent No. 2.

However, it was emphasized that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad. While Respondent No. 1, the Ministry of External Affairs, was acknowledged for pointing out their obligation to provide accurate information to foreign authorities, it was clarified that this responsibility does not extend to unjustly curtailing the Petitioner’s right to apply for a long-term visa. The Legalframework demands that, in such cases the individual must seek the necessary permission from the relevant court before traveling. In the case the Petitioner has a valid passport and no restrictions on travel. But the restriction upon the traveling and setting up of business is related to Article 19(1)(g), Right to engage in any occupation or business.

The Petitioner, like any other Indian citizen, holds the constitutional right to pursue any lawful business or trade both within and outside the country as permissible. The ‘adverse’ report given by the Respondent No. 2 objects to the issuance of a PCC on the ground that there are pending criminal cases against the Petitioner and there is no NOC. It must be noted that the Petitioner had approached the Trial Court for the purpose of issuance of an NOC, however as noted above, the request of the Petitioner was denied for lack of jurisdiction. Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now The Court is of the opinion that even though the State has the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19(6), in the instant case, denying the Petitioner a PCC due to the mere pendency of FIRs — without any conviction or finding of guilt — constitutes an unreasonable restriction. The renewal of his passport in 2019 for a decade signifies that the Passport Authorities did not find any reason at that time to deny him travel privileges. The issuance of the PCC will neither impact the ongoing criminal proceedings nor confer any undue advantage upon the Petitioner.

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. Moreover, the Petitioner’s right to work and freedom of movement, must not be unjustly restricted solely on the existence of these FIRs. Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the rights and interest of the Petitioner must be balanced with Respondents’ obligation as a sovereign. So the Court directed to issue a PCC to the Petitioner explicitly mentioning the pending criminal case against him as well the fact that the Petitioner has complied with the RPFC’s order by making the required deposit. Also stated that this would provide complete transparency to the Canadian authorities for their assessment of his visa application.Also suggested that the prescribed PCC application, as per the Passport Rules, 1980, be modified accordingly. He further mentioned that the PCC should be issued within two weeks from that day. With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of along with pending applications.