E-Paper
Denial of police clearance to accused acquitted in 26/11 attacks case a ‘reasonable restriction’: HC
Fahim Arshad Ansari served a 10-year jail term for allegedly providing “logistical support” to 10 Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives in connection with the November 26, 2008 Rampur CRPF camp attack in Uttar Pradesh.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court, while rejecting the petition of Mumbra resident Fahim Arshad Ansari (52) on April 29, stated that denying him a police clearance certificate (PCC) to obtain a public service vehicle (PSV) badge for driving an auto-rickshaw is a reasonable restriction given his criminal record.
Ansari served a 10-year jail term for allegedly providing “logistical support” to 10 Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives in connection with the November 26, 2008 Rampur CRPF camp attack in Uttar Pradesh. Lashkar-e-Taiba is a Pakistan-based terrorist organisation. He was later acquitted in the case.
The division bench of justice AS Gadkari and justice RR Bhonsale accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the state authorities that the possibility of Ansari indulging in similar activity cannot be ruled out in view of his criminal antecedents.
“According to us, prospects of employment of the petitioner are only restricted in the backdrop of the criminal antecedents in a reasonable manner and in the larger interest of public safety and national security,” said the bench.
Ansari had approached the high court in 2025, complaining that the PCC was refused to him on “stale and untenable grounds”.
He said after getting out of jail, he did odd jobs but the pandemic-induced lockdowns cut that short. To sustain his family of three, in January 2024, he obtained a three-wheeler driving license. In May 2024, he applied online for PCC in order to secure a PSV badge required to ply a commercial vehicle.
After waiting for a few months, he filed an RTI application to know the status and was informed that the PCC was refused “as he was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba”, prompting him to approach the high court.
The judges, however, said the petitioner’s employment options were only curtailed to exclude certain jobs. “The petitioner is free to seek alternate employment,” the bench said, rejecting Ansari’s application.
