The Bombay High Court has affirmed that prior conviction for grave offences against national security, coupled with credible intelligence linking an individual to a banned terrorist organization, justifies the denial of a Police Clearance Certificate for commercial employment, even after completion of sentence and acquittal on separate charges. This ruling clarifies the limits of rehabilitation in contexts where public safety overrides individual livelihood rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Fahim Arshad Mohammed Yusuf Ansari, sought a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) to obtain a Public Service Vehicle (PSV) badge required to operate an auto rickshaw for commercial purposes. The Mumbra Police Station denied his application dated 18.05.2024, citing his criminal history and alleged association with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The petitioner challenged this refusal through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Key Facts
The petitioner was arrested on 01.02.2008 in connection with C.R. No. 210 of 2008, Rampur Police Station, Uttar Pradesh, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 200, 121, 121-A IPC.
He was convicted in Sessions Case No. 211 of 2008 and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
He completed his sentence and was released on 05.11.2019.
In December 2008, he was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 55/08, linked to the 26.11.2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks at the Taj Hotel.
He was acquitted in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2009 on 06.05.2010.
The acquittal was upheld by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 606 of 2010 and confirmed by the Supreme Court on 29.08.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 1961 of 2011.
The petitioner worked at a printing press in Byculla in 2020 and later as a delivery executive for Zomato during the Covid-19 pandemic.
He obtained a three-wheeler license on 19.01.2024 and applied for a PSV badge on 18.05.2024.
On 13.08.2024, he was informed via RTI response that his PCC was denied because he was identified as a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba Sanghatana.
The police relied on intelligence reports indicating his role in providing ancillary logistical support in both the CRPF grenade attack and the Mumbai attacks.
Procedural History
18.05.2024: Petitioner applied online for Police Clearance Certificate at Mumbra Police Station.
13.08.2024: Police informed petitioner via RTI response that PCC was denied due to LeT links.
02.04.2025: Assistant Commissioner of Police filed affidavit justifying refusal.
09.12.2025: Case reserved for judgment.
29.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: He had served his full sentence and was acquitted in the terrorism-related case. The denial of PCC was punitive, disproportionate, and violated his right to livelihood under Article 21. He argued that acquittal should erase stigma and that alternative employment avenues were insufficient.
Respondent’s Position: The petitioner’s criminal antecedents - particularly his conviction in the CRPF attack and alleged role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks - posed a credible threat to public safety. Intelligence reports classified him as a high-risk individual. Policy mandates adverse remarks in PCC for serious crimes, and the refusal was uniform, non-arbitrary, and grounded in national security.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to issue the Police Clearance Certificate and to direct that his acquittal in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2009 and completion of sentence in Sessions Case No. 211 of 2008 should not bar him from obtaining a PSV badge.
The Legal Issue
Can the state deny a Police Clearance Certificate for a commercial driving license based on past conviction and alleged terrorist links, even after sentence completion and acquittal on separate charges, without violating the right to livelihood under Article 21?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the denial of PCC was a de facto perpetual punishment beyond the sentence imposed by law. He relied on State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah to assert that rehabilitation must be meaningful and that post-sentence stigma cannot be weaponized to deny livelihood. He emphasized that acquittal in the terrorism case, confirmed by the Supreme Court, negated any legal basis for continued suspicion. The petitioner’s employment in Zomato and printing press demonstrated his reintegration into society.
For the Respondent
The Acting Public Prosecutor submitted that the refusal was not punitive but precautionary, grounded in intelligence assessments under national security protocols. Citing K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the state argued that reasonable restrictions on rights are permissible when public safety is at stake. The policy requiring adverse remarks for serious crimes was uniformly applied. The petitioner’s role in the CRPF attack - resulting in eight deaths - and alleged logistical support for LeT in Mumbai rendered him a continuing threat. The state produced confidential intelligence reports, which the court accepted as valid grounds.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the petitioner’s criminal history and the state’s duty to safeguard national security. It noted that while the petitioner had been acquitted in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt, not exoneration. The intelligence reports, though not disclosed in full, were deemed credible and corroborated by the petitioner’s prior conviction in the CRPF grenade attack, which resulted in the deaths of seven CRPF personnel and one civilian.
"The offences involved 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 Court held that the denial of PCC was not a blanket ban on employment but a targeted restriction on a specific commercial activity involving public mobility. The petitioner remained free to pursue other forms of employment, including stationary jobs, as acknowledged by the state.
The Court emphasized that the right to livelihood under Article 21 is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and national security. It cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to affirm that restrictions must be proportionate and non-arbitrary. Here, the restriction was deemed proportionate: the petitioner’s past conduct involved grave threats to life and national integrity, and the denial was limited to a single occupational category with inherent public exposure.
The Court further held that the state’s policy of issuing adverse remarks in PCC for serious crimes was neither discriminatory nor irrational. The refusal was based on verified records and intelligence, not mere suspicion. The petitioner’s acquittal did not erase the factual basis of the allegations or the intelligence assessment.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the refusal of the Police Clearance Certificate for the PSV badge, finding the decision lawful, reasonable, and grounded in national security imperatives. The petitioner remains free to pursue other forms of employment, but is barred from operating a commercial auto rickshaw due to his criminal antecedents and assessed risk profile.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Criminal Antecedents Can Justify Occupational Restrictions
Practitioners must advise clients with prior convictions for terrorism, sedition, or attacks on state personnel that even after sentence completion, certain public-facing roles may remain inaccessible.
Acquittal does not automatically nullify intelligence-based assessments; courts may uphold restrictions if national security concerns are substantiated.
Policy-Based Denials Are Legally Sustainable
Government policies requiring adverse remarks in PCC for serious crimes are enforceable if uniformly applied.
Confidential intelligence reports, though not disclosed, can form the basis of administrative decisions if the court finds them credible and relevant.
Livelihood Rights Are Not Absolute
The right to earn a livelihood under Article 21 is subject to reasonable restrictions for public safety.
Denial of a PSV badge or similar license is not a total deprivation if alternative employment avenues exist.
Practitioners should focus on proving the absence of current threat or rehabilitation efforts, but success is unlikely where past conduct involved grave threats to national security.
