Delhi HC: Delhi High Court rules: Pending criminal case does not bar work abroad | Delhi News

New Delhi: Mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a person from applying long-term opportunities abroad, the Delhi High Court said, directing passport authorities to issue one within two weeks criminal record certificate (PCC) to a man who is still outstanding Criminal cases and must submit a document to the Canadian authorities to set up a company there.
The Supreme Court noted that the rights and interests of the petitioner must be balanced with the obligations of the authorities as a sovereign body and also requested that the PCC should specifically mention the pending criminal cases against him. This would provide Canadian authorities with complete transparency in assessing his sentence Visa applicationit added.
The court observed that the only reason for rejecting the PCC was the presence of pending FIRs as per the Delhi Police report. “It is important to emphasize, however, that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically preclude a person from exercising his or her right to seek long-term opportunities abroad,” the court noted. “While Defendant No. 1 – the State Department – rightly points out its obligation to provide accurate information to foreign authorities, this responsibility does not extend to unjustifiably restricting the plaintiff’s right to apply for a long-term visa,” it said it added.
The petitioner, an Indian with a valid passport, approached the court seeking rejection of the PCC required to apply for the start-up visa program in Canada, where he intended to set up a business.
The statement of claim said that under Canadian visa rules, an applicant must file a PCC from their country of residence to set up a business in Canada. The petitioner and his property faced two FIRs registered with the Delhi Police in 2013 based on complaints by officials of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization for failing to return the deducted PF amounts under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act had paid in.
The court noted that the regional passport office can only issue a PCC if it receives a “clear” police verification report from the relevant authorities. It noted that the petitioner has a valid passport and there are no travel restrictions, adding that his right to work and freedom of movement should not be unjustifiably restricted solely by the existence of these FIRs.
Although the state has the power to impose reasonable restrictions on a citizen’s fundamental rights, denial of a PCC on the basis of mere pendency of FIRs constitutes an undue restriction, it added.
The plea argued that even if PCC furnished the outstanding FIRs, the petitioner would be able to comply with the requirement of submitting these FIRs and apply for a visa.