The Delhi High Court in a recent order held that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a person from applying for long-term visa abroad. The court said that the person who was denied clearance certificate by authorities because of pending FIRs against him had the right to seek long-term opportunities abroad.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula found that the only ground on which police clearance certificate (PCC) was denied to the appellant was the existence of pending FIRs against him. The court found that the person who was denied PCC for seeking Visa in Canada needed to submit the document to Canadian authorities to set up a business there.
“This would provide complete transparency to the Canadian authorities for their assessment of his visa application. The PCC shall be issued in two weeks’ time from today,” the high court order read.
The high court held that a pending FIR cannot be the sole ground for rejection and directed the passport authorities to issue within two weeks a police PCC.
The court said that while the Ministry of External Affairs is correct to point out its obligation to provide accurate information to the foreign authorities, this responsibility does not extend to unjustly curtailing the petitioner's right to apply for a long-term visa.
The court passed the said order on a petition by a person who was an Indian national and had a valid passport, against the refusal by the authorities to issue him a PCC which was required for applying under the Start-up Visa Programme in Canada.
The Canadian visa rules require an applicant to submit a PCC from their country of residence to set up a business in Canada. The petitioner was facing two FIRs registered with the Delhi Police. The complaints dated back to 2013 and was lodged by officials of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), alleging that while he deducted provident fund contributions from the wages of employees working at DMRC and NPL sites, but he failed to deposit the amount in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
In 2019, the RPFC assessed an amount of Rs 7.48 lakh to be deposited by him which he paid in 2019. The court said that the PCC should be issued to the man mentioning the pending criminal cases against him as well as the fact that he has complied with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's (RPFC) order by making the required deposit.
The court said that this relates to his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to engage in an occupation or business.