The Bombay High Court on Tuesday saw a key development in the case of Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari, who was acquitted in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack trial. A bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale was informed by the Maharashtra government that Ansari is free to seek employment, as long as the job does not require a police clearance certificate (PCC).

The bench has decided to examine the matter “in-chamber” following the prosecution’s submission of a confidential report related to Ansari.

Facts:

Ansari had approached the High Court seeking a Police Clearance Certificate, asserting that the document is essential for him to secure gainful employment and earn a living.

The chargesheet in the 26/11 case had accused him of preparing maps of Mumbai and sharing them with the ‘masterminds’ in Pakistan. However, the special court, in its judgment dated May 6, 2010, acquitted him of all charges—a decision that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. Despite this acquittal, Ansari was convicted in a separate case in Lucknow, where he served a ten-year prison term.

In his plea, Ansari narrated that after his release from prison in November 2019, he began working at a printing press in Byculla. Unfortunately, the establishment closed during the Covid-19 lockdown, forcing him to take up work as a delivery boy. Later, he found another job at a printing press in Mumbra. As the pay there was insufficient to support his family, he decided to apply for a three-wheeler auto-rickshaw license and received it on January 1, 2024. To operate commercially, he then applied for a mandatory Police Clearance Certificate(PCC) to obtain a Police Service Vehicle (PSV) badge. However, despite repeated follow-ups with the authorities, there was no response regarding his application.

Frustrated by the inaction, Ansari filed an RTI query and received a response on August 13, 2024, stating that he could not be issued a PCC as he was considered a member of the banned outfit ‘Lashkar-e-Toiba’ (LeT). Terming this claim “arbitrary,” Ansari argued that the denial was a violation of his basic rights under the Constitution.

"The petitioner having suffered the full impact of punishment and paying his dues to the society for the offence he committed in the former, is legally entitled to engage in gainful employment, free from any legal blemish or barriers. The fact that the petitioner was tried in the (26/11 attack) case cannot operate as a blanket ban that disentitles him from availing opportunities, especially in the light of the acquittal order passed by the special court and confirmed even by the Supreme Court," the plea states.

The petition further contends that the authorities, by refusing to grant a PCC, have infringed upon Ansari’s fundamental right to livelihood and the right to life, protected under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

It therefore seeks a directive from the court to instruct the police to issue the clearance certificate. Earlier, the matter had come up before a division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale, who later recused themselves from hearing the case.

Case Details:Fahim Mohammed Yusuf Ansari v. State of Maharashtra 

WP(ST)/138/2025