Pending FIRs do not automatically prevent right to seek business opportunities abroad: Court

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad.

The case refers to the petitioner, an Indian national having a valid Indian passport, facing two criminal complaints related to not depositing employee provident fund contributions on behalf of the employees.

The petitioner approached the court against the respondents who declined to provide a police clearance certificate (PCC), which is a crucial requirement for applying under the Start-up Visa Programme at Canada, where the Petitioner intends to set up a business venture. According to Canadian Visa regulations, an applicant must submit a PCC from their country of residence to set up a business in Canada.

Observations of the Court

The petitioner has a valid passport that has been renewed till 2029, allowing him to travel outside of India. He also has a valid multiple-entry Visa for Canada, which grants him admission into the country. Petitioner’s current concern stems from a specific need under Canada’s Start-up Visa Program, which requires the submission of a PCC from the applicant’s place of residence.

It was clear that the only reason for denying the PCC is the presence of outstanding FIRs against the Petitioner.

However, it should be noted that the mere existence of a pending criminal case does not automatically prevent an individual from exercising their freedom to pursue long-term possibilities overseas. While Respondent is justified in emphasizing their commitment to provide accurate information to foreign authorities, this responsibility does not include unfairly restricting the Petitioner’s right to seek for a long-term visa.

The legal system requires that, in circumstances where criminal procedures are continuing, the individual obtain authorization from the appropriate court before traveling. In this case, the petitioner possesses a valid passport and no limits on petitioner’s travel.

Petitioner endeavour, however, goes beyond mere travel and concerns petitioner’s right to seek a long-term Visa to establish a business in a foreign country. This relates to petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to engage in an occupation or business.

It is equally relevant to note that petitioner’s passport was renewed in 2019 for a decade. This renewal signifies that the Passport Authorities did not find any reason at that time to deny him travel privileges. It would be inconsistent for the same authorities to now refuse to issue a PCC solely based on the pending FIRs.

The issuance of the PCC will neither impact the ongoing criminal proceedings nor confer any undue advantage upon the Petitioner. The primary role of a PCC is to ensure transparency about an individual’s background, not to impose blanket restrictions on the basis of pending cases. Moreover, the Petitioner’s right to work and freedom of movement, must not be unjustly restricted solely on the existence of these FIRs.

Court’s Verdict

It would be unjust to impose a blanket restriction on the petitioner’s efforts to secure a Visa solely based on the pendency of a case. The Petitioner, like any other Indian citizen, holds the constitutional right to pursue any lawful business or trade both within and outside the country as permissible.

The Respondents were directed to issue a PCC to the Petitioner explicitly mentioning the pending criminal case against him. This would provide complete transparency to the Canadian authorities for their assessment of petitioner’s Visa application.