Bombay HC denies police clearance to Faheem Ansari acquitted in 26/11 case

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday, April 29, dismissed a petition filed by Fahim Ansari, acquitted in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, who has sought the issuance of a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) by the Maharashtra Police to work as an autorickshaw driver.

A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale stated that the refusal to issue the PCC was justified, given the facts of the case and the security concerns raised by officials, and dismissed the petition.

Ansari, acquitted in the 26/11 attack case, had approached the court in February 2025, claiming that the denial of PCC violated his right to livelihood. He said that the Clearance Certificate was a necessity to get a Police Service Vehicle (PSV) badge mandatory for commercially driving an auto. The State government, represented by its public prosecutor, held that he is at liberty to pursue an occupation that does not require a PCC.

A special court on May 6, 2010, acquitted Ansari after the allegations that he helped the attacker by preparing maps were proven to be false. However, he was convicted in a different case in Lucknow and sentenced to 10 years.

In November 2019, following his release, he worked in a printing press in Mumbai and Thane and later as a delivery worker during the COVID-19 pandemic. He secured an autorickshaw licence in January 2024, due to low income, and applied for a PCC.

Ansari filed for a Right to Information application after receiving no response and learned that he was denied one on the basis of his alleged links to the banned organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba. Claiming the decision was arbitrary, he argued that he had the right to reintegrate into society after serving his prison term and to continue lawful employment without discrimination.

Through his petition, he invoked fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice profession, occupation, trade, or business) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

Initially, the matter was listed before a bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela Gokhale, who later recused themselves from hearing the case.