The High Court of Kerala has clarified that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify the outright refusal of a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC). The judgment establishes that transparency, not denial, is the lawful response when an applicant is subject to ongoing prosecution. This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative bodies must act proportionately and with due regard to fundamental rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shershah Byju, applied for a standard Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) as part of his application for overseas employment. The Regional Passport Office refused the request, citing his involvement in a pending criminal case under Crime No. 1371/2022 at Kannanelurer Police Station, Kollam. The petitioner was not accused of any moral turpitude offense, and the case had progressed only to the stage of a charge sheet filed in the Magistrate’s Court.
Procedural History
- 2022: Crime No. 1371/2022 registered at Kannanelurer Police Station, Kollam
- 2023: Final report/charge sheet filed as C.C. No. 104/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakara
- January 2026: Petitioner applied for PCC; application rejected by the Regional Passport Office without explanation
- January 2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the refusal
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the Regional Passport Office to issue a standard PCC. Alternatively, he requested that if a Customized PCC was mandated, it must contain accurate and complete details of the pending case, as disclosed in the charge sheet.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere pendency of a criminal case justifies the automatic denial of a Police Clearance Certificate, or whether the Passport Authority is obligated to issue a Customized PCC disclosing the nature of the pending proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the refusal violated the right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. They emphasized that the charge sheet did not allege any offense involving moral turpitude, and that the Passport Authority had no statutory mandate to deny a PCC solely on the basis of a pending case. Reliance was placed on State of Kerala v. S. Sreejith (2021), where the Court held that administrative decisions must be reasoned and proportionate.
For the Respondent
The Deputy Solicitor General contended that Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, empowers the Passport Authority to withhold a PCC if the applicant is under investigation or prosecution. They argued that issuing a standard PCC would mislead foreign authorities and compromise national interests. The DSGI insisted that only a Customized PCC, explicitly mentioning the criminal case, could be issued - and even then, only upon a court order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Passport Act, 1967, and the Passport Rules, 1980, and found no provision that permits blanket denial of a PCC merely because a person is facing criminal proceedings. The Court noted that the Passport Authority’s discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in a manner consistent with natural justice and proportionality.
"The fact that a charge sheet has been filed does not equate to a finding of guilt. Denial of a PCC without disclosure of the nature of the allegations amounts to punitive action without due process."
The Court distinguished between withholding a passport (which may be justified under Section 10 of the Passport Act) and refusing a PCC, which is an administrative document for foreign employment verification. It held that the right to seek employment abroad is an essential facet of personal liberty under Article 21, and that transparency through a Customized PCC serves both the applicant’s rights and the interests of foreign authorities.
The Court further observed that Ext.P2, the charge sheet, was already in the public domain and accessible to the Passport Office. Therefore, withholding its details from the PCC was arbitrary and violated the principle of reasoned decision-making.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the Passport Authority must issue a Customized PCC disclosing the details of the pending criminal case as per the charge sheet. The petitioner was directed to obtain prior court permission before traveling abroad, ensuring that the pending proceedings are not prejudiced.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Customized PCC Is Not a Penalty, But a Disclosure
- Practitioners must now argue that denial of a PCC is unlawful unless the applicant is under a court order restricting travel
- A Customized PCC is a transparency mechanism, not a punitive measure
- Authorities cannot invoke vague grounds like "national interest" to deny documents without citing specific statutory provisions
Burden of Justification Lies with the Authority
- When a PCC is denied, the burden shifts to the Passport Authority to demonstrate why a Customized PCC would be inadequate
- Mere mention of a pending case is insufficient; the authority must show how the nature of the offense justifies non-disclosure
- Failure to disclose details from the charge sheet renders the refusal arbitrary and violative of Article 14
Procedural Fairness in Administrative Decisions
- Administrative bodies must provide written reasons for denying PCCs
- Applicants must be given an opportunity to respond to allegations before adverse decisions are made
- This judgment reinforces the doctrine of legitimate expectation in administrative law, particularly in matters affecting livelihood and mobility
