The Bombay High Court is currently hearing a plea filed by Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari, who was among those acquitted in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case, seeking a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC). The certificate is necessary for him to obtain a license to operate an auto-rickshaw — a licence which requires a “Police Service Vehicle (PSV)” badge and thereby mandatory police clearance. Ansari contends that without the PCC, he is unable to earn a livelihood, following his release from prison and previous employment efforts.
Ansari had initially sought the PCC after obtaining the autorickshaw licence, but multiple inquiries with police authorities received no response. Under Right to Information queries, he was informed that his application was denied because he was allegedly associated with a banned terrorist organization, which he claims is unfair especially after his acquittal in the 26/11 case. He argues that being tried — and acquitted — in that case cannot amount to a perpetual disqualification from employment.
In response, the State — through the Maharashtra government — told the High Court that while Ansari’s request for a PCC is being considered in light of a confidential police report, he remains free to take up any employment that does not require a police clearance or character-verification certificate. The government provided to the court a list of occupations that do require police verification — including government jobs, semi-government posts, municipal employment, jobs requiring RTO-issued badges or permits (such as driving taxis or autorickshaws), security guard positions, and employment in schools or educational institutions, among others. For these jobs, the refusal to grant PCC, according to the State’s stand, is maintained.
Given the sensitive nature of the confidential report reportedly relied upon by police, the High Court has decided to hear Ansari’s petition “in chambers” rather than in open court. This indicates that the matter will be reviewed privately before any decision is made, acknowledging the confidentiality around law enforcement’s assessment while considering Ansari’s plea for his fundamental rights.
The 26/11 terror attacks of 2008 — which claimed 166 lives and injured hundreds — resulted in the arrest of Ansari and another Indian accused alongside Pakistani terrorists. While the lone surviving Pakistani attacker was convicted, Ansari and his co-accused were acquitted by the special court due to lack of evidence; that acquittal was later upheld by higher courts. Nonetheless, Ansari remained under regulatory watch and faced hurdles in securing a PCC required for certain forms of employment, especially public-facing or transport-related jobs.
Post his release in 2019 (after serving a sentence in an unrelated separate case), Ansari found work at a printing press; but the business shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter he secured another printing job, but the income was insufficient to sustain his family. Consequently, he applied for a licence to operate a three-wheeler autorickshaw — which was granted — and sought the mandatory PCC needed to legally ply it commercially. The denial of PCC by police prompted his petition before the High Court, claiming violation of his fundamental right to livelihood.
The Court now is reviewing the State’s response and the confidential material submitted, with a view to adjudicate whether it should direct issuance of a PCC or uphold the denial, balancing security concerns raised by police and Ansari’s right to earn a livelihood. The matter remains pending.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.