The High Court of Kerala has clarified that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify the denial of a standard Police Clearance Certificate. This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative action must be proportionate and grounded in statutory mandate, not speculative risk.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ashik Jacob Mathew, applied for a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) as part of his passport-related formalities for overseas employment. The Regional Passport Office refused to issue a standard PCC, citing an ongoing criminal case against him under Section 406 IPC, and insisted that only a "Customised PCC" - one disclosing the pending case - could be issued, and only upon court direction.
Procedural History
- 2022: Criminal Case CC No. 52/2022 registered against the petitioner at Puttencruz Police Station
- 2025: Two orders issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry (Exts. P2 and P3) directing police to complete investigation and file charge sheet
- December 2025: Petitioner submitted PCC application online (Ext. P4)
- January 2026: Application status showed "Pending due to criminal case"; no PCC issued
- January 29, 2026: Writ petition filed before the High Court of Kerala
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a standard PCC without disclosing the pendency of the criminal case, arguing that such disclosure violated his right to privacy and was not mandated by any rule.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the pendency of a criminal case, without a conviction or even a charge sheet, justifies the denial of a standard Police Clearance Certificate under the Passport Rules, 1980, or whether such denial amounts to an arbitrary exercise of administrative discretion.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that the right to privacy includes protection against unwarranted disclosure of unproven allegations. They contended that the Passport Rules do not mandate disclosure of pending cases in a standard PCC, and that the refusal was disproportionate. The absence of a charge sheet or conviction meant the case remained at the investigatory stage, and thus could not justify stigmatization.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the PCC is an instrument of public safety and that the police verification authority has a duty to disclose all pending criminal matters to foreign authorities. They cited internal guidelines of the Ministry of External Affairs, which allegedly require disclosure of any criminal complaint, regardless of stage, to ensure transparency in international travel.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Passports Act, 1967, and the Passport Rules, 1980, and found no provision requiring the inclusion of pending criminal cases in a standard PCC. The Court emphasized that administrative action must be reasonable and not punitive in nature.
"The issuance of a Police Clearance Certificate is not a punitive measure nor a pre-trial condemnation. To equate a pending investigation with a finding of guilt is to violate the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of our criminal jurisprudence."
The Court distinguished between a "Customised PCC" - which may be issued upon specific request by a foreign authority - and a standard PCC, which is meant for routine administrative purposes. It held that the Respondents had conflated procedural caution with substantive judgment, thereby exceeding their authority.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had not been charge-sheeted, and the Magistrate’s orders merely directed further investigation. To deny a standard PCC under these circumstances was an unjustified infringement of the petitioner’s right to livelihood and freedom of movement.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the pendency of a criminal case, without a charge sheet or conviction, cannot justify the denial of a standard Police Clearance Certificate. The 2nd respondent was directed to issue a standard PCC within two weeks, incorporating only the fact of the case’s existence as recorded in official records, without editorial commentary or stigmatizing language.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Standard PCC Cannot Be Withheld on Suspicion Alone
- Practitioners must advise clients that pending investigations do not automatically trigger a Customised PCC
- Administrative authorities must distinguish between factual disclosure and prejudicial narration
- Denial of a standard PCC without statutory basis invites judicial review under Article 14 and 21
Disclosure Must Be Proportionate and Statutorily Mandated
- Internal guidelines cannot override statutory rules or fundamental rights
- Any disclosure beyond what is prescribed under the Passport Rules must be justified by a specific foreign government request
- Lawyers should challenge blanket policies that presume guilt from mere accusation
Right to Livelihood Trumps Administrative Convenience
- Denial of PCC can disrupt overseas employment, education, and family reunification
- Courts will intervene where administrative inaction or overreach causes disproportionate harm
- Petitioners should cite Puttaswamy and Maneka Gandhi to establish the link between travel documents and personal liberty
