MR. AMARDEEP SINGH BEDI versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Through this instant writ petition, the Petitioner approached Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for the issuance of the PCC.
The Petitioner was an Indian national with a valid Indian passport issued by the Regional Passport Office in Delhi, India. Passport was valid till 01st May, 2029.
The Petitioner and his firm Bedi and Bedi was facing two FIRs in 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.
Now, because of pending FIRs the petitioner was not able to get the Police Clearance Certificate(PCC) to set up a business venture in Canada. This Police Clearance Certificate is a crucial requirement for applying under the Start-up Visa Programme at Canada, where the Petitioner intends to set up a business venture.
Petitioner also approached the Trial Court where the criminal case against him were pending, seeking directions to the Regional Passport Office for the issuance of PCC. However, this request was denied on 26th June, 2024 with the Trial Court noting that it lacked the jurisdiction to issue such directions.
Enquiry by Provident Fund Commissioner
This inquiry culminated in an order under Section 7A of the EPF Act to the effect that both the Petitioner and the Principal Employer(His Firm) were jointly and severally liable to deposit the PF contributions as mandated by the EPF Act. Consequently, the Petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of INR 7,485,753/- as assessed by the RPFC. This amount was duly paid by the Petitioner.
Hon’ble Court carefully considered the circumstances of the case. Court obeserved that, 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 purpose of the PCC is that it indicates 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, the Regional Passport Office can only issue a PCC if it receives a ‘Clear’ Police Verification Report from the relevant authorities.
The Petitioner had valid passport, which enables him to travel outside India. He also possesses a valid multiple-entry Visa for Canada, allowing him entry into that country.
However, his present concern arises from the specific requirement under Canada’s Start-up Visa Programme, which requires the submission of a PCC.
Bail Condition discussed by Court
In the present case the Petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with the FIRs filed against him in 2013. The condition for this bail is that the Petitioner must join the investigation whenever directed by the Investigating Officer. Notably, there is no restriction imposed by the Trial Court on the Petitioner’s travel. It is also pertinent that, aside from
these two FIRs, the Petitioner has no other criminal cases against him. Moreover, the Petitioner has fulfilled his liability by making the required provident fund deposits under the EPF Act.
Court said as the petitioner intends to establish a business in a foreign country. This relates to his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to engage in an 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.
In the opinion of the Court, 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 Police Clearance Certificate(PCC) due to the mere pendency of FIRs without any conviction or finding of guilt, constitutes an unreasonable restriction. Therefore, it would be unjust to impose a blanket restriction on his efforts to secure a Visa solely based on the pendency of a case.
The Respondents were directed to issue a Police Clearance Certificate(PCC) to the Petitioner explicitly mentioning the pending criminal case against him as well as the fact that the Petitioner has complied with the RPFC’s order by making the required deposit.
With the above directions, the present writ petition was decided in favor of Petitioner.
Edited & Complied by
9891800100