The Bombay High Court has upheld the police department’s decision to deny a character clearance certificate to Fahim Ansari, a man previously acquitted in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks case. The court ruled that the refusal was a “precautionary measure” taken in the “larger interest of public safety and national security.”
A division bench of Justices A S Gadkari and R R Bhonsale dismissed Ansari’s petition, which challenged the police’s refusal to grant him the clearance necessary to obtain a public service vehicle (PSV) badge. The badge is a mandatory requirement for plying an autorickshaw for commercial purposes in the city.
Fahim Ansari moved the High Court in January last year, arguing that the denial of the certificate was “arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory.” He contended that despite his acquittal in the 2008 terror attacks case, the authorities were using his past arrest and trial as grounds to bar him from fundamental rights, specifically the right to earn a livelihood through public amenities.
Ansari was originally accused of providing ancillary logistical support to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists who carried out the coordinated attacks on November 26, 2008, which claimed 166 lives. While a special court acquitted him in 2010 due to a lack of evidence—a decision later upheld by both the High Court and the Supreme Court—the police cited other “criminal antecedents” as the basis for their current refusal.
The state government opposed the plea, presenting a confidential intelligence report to the bench. The authorities argued that policy guidelines for character verification mandate an adverse remark for individuals with serious criminal backgrounds or prior convictions.
Notably, while acquitted in the 26/11 case, Ansari was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison for an attack on CRPF officials in Uttar Pradesh. He approached the court for the permit after serving that sentence.
After reviewing the sensitive intelligence communication, the bench noted that the police’s apprehension was well-founded.
“The offences involved were extremely serious in nature and a threat to the security of the country. The police authorities, based on intelligence reports, have considered the petitioner as a high potential risk,” the court observed in its judgment, a copy of which was made available on Thursday.
The bench further noted that the “possibility of Ansari indulging in similar activities cannot be ruled out” and that the verification process was conducted strictly in accordance with established guidelines.
Addressing the petitioner’s claim regarding his right to livelihood, the court clarified that Ansari’s employment opportunities are only restricted regarding “certain jobs” that involve public interaction and safety, such as driving a commercial autorickshaw. The bench emphasized that several other avenues of employment remain open to him.
“We find no reason to differ with the opinion of the government authorities nor can any fault be found with it,” the court concluded.
