Denying Police Clearance Certificate Over National Security Concerns Is Reasonable Restriction On Right To Livelihood: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court while upholding the decision of the Maharashtra Government denying Police ClearanceCertificate (PCC) to the lone acquitted accused Fahim Ansari, in 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks case, held that the refusal does not violate his 'right to earn a livelihood' and instead is a 'reasonable restriction.'

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale noted that the Government had refused the PCC after considering the fact that Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari was accused of providing 'logistics support' in the 26/11 attack and also attacked the CRPF officials with a grenade and also that he was a member of the banned outfit - Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). 

"We find no reason to differ with the opinion of the Government Authorities nor can any fault be found with it. According to us, prospects of employment of the Petitioner are only restricted in the backdrop of the criminal antecedents in a reasonable manner and in the larger interest of public safety and national security. It is not the case that, the Petitioner is left without any avenues of employment. We note that the Petitioner's employment avenues/opportunities only stand curtailed to exclude certain jobs," the bench said in the judgment, pronounced on April 29.

The bench noted the submission of the Maharashtra Government that Ansari was free to avail of an alternate employment, which would not mandate a PCC.

"The said restriction on the employment of the Petitioner or right to earn livelihood or carry out business and trade, according to us is a reasonable restriction. The said restriction is being imposed by the Authorities after considering the record, the antecedents and more importantly in the larger interest of the general public and society. We are of the opinion that the Authorities are right in there contention when they restrict the employment opportunities/opportunities to earn a livelihood in the larger interest of the role as assigned to the Petitioner 'providing ancillary logistical support' the Police Authorities are apprehensive and have therefore as a precautionary measure refused the police clearance to the Petitioner to ply an auto rickshaw on the commercial basis," the bench held. 

The offences in which Ansari was involved, the bench remarked, were extremely serious in nature and a threat to the security of the country. "The Police Authorities, based on the intelligence reports have considered the Petitioner as a high potential risk. The Petitioner, considering the role assigned to him in the crimes has been considered a high risk for certain jobs including that of plying of the commercial auto rickshaw within PSV badge," the bench noted. 

The bench noted that while considering an application for PCC in cases where there is a serious criminal background or prior convictions, there is a policy of the State, that such application must be issued with an adverse remark in the verification report, which must be applied uniformly.

"The inclusion of the adverse remark is mandatory as a consequence of the Petitioners antecedents, role assigned and nature of crimes. The adverse report or the refusal to grant PCC appears to be based on the policy decision wherein in serious crimes an adverse remark is issued. In the present case, the verification process was conducted in accordance with the guidelines and after following the required diligence in as much as the Petitioner records checked thoroughly and the decision has been made based on the verified criminal history," the bench noted. 

With these observations, the bench upheld the Government decision to deny PCC.

Appearance:

Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh and Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Palkar represented the State.

Case Title: Fahim Arshad Mohammed Yusuf Ansari vs State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) 138 of 2025]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 223

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment