Man Aquitted In 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks Case Moves Bombay High Court Seeking 'Right To Livelihood', Judge Recuses From Hearing Plea

One of the accused in the 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attack case - Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari, who was acquitted from the case on May 6, 2010, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking a 'Police Clearance Certificate' so that he can engage in some employment to earn his livelihood. 

Ansari was shown to be arrested in the 26/11 attack case in December 2008 while he was already in custody in some other case related to waging a war against the country, in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. 

According to chargesheet filed in the 26/11 case, Fahim was charged for preparing maps of Mumbai and handing over the same to 'masterminds' in Pakistan. However, this charge was not accepted by the special court, which on May 6, 2010, acquitted him from the case. But Fahim faced conviction in the other case lodged against him in Lucknow, and in that case, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. 

In his plea, Fahim stated that soon after his release in November 2019, he secured a job at a printing press in Mumbai's Byculla area, which soon was shut down during the Covid-19 pandemic - a period when he worked as a delivery boy. Thereafter, he got a job in a printing press in Mumbra.

But since the income from this job was insufficient for Fahim to look after his family, he applied for a three-wheeler auto-rickshaw license, which he got on January 1, 2024. Thereafter, he applied for the mandatory Police Clearance Certificate (PCC), which is a must to obtain a Police Service Vehicle (PSV) badge. This badge is mandatory for plying an auto-rickshaw for commercial purposes. 

With no response to his multiple enqueries with the concerned police authorities about the status of his PCC plea, Fahim finally filed an application under the Right To Information (RTI) Act only to receive a response on August 13, 2024, wherein the authorities informed him that since he is a member of 'Lashkar-e-Toiba' (LeT), a banned organisation, a PCC could not be provided to him. This he contended has violated his fundamental rights and the action of the police was 'arbitrary.'

"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 states that the police, by denying him a PCC, have deprived him of his fundamental right to livelihood and right to life, guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It therefore, seeks a directive to the authorities to issue a PCC to him. 

The petition was initially listed before a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale. However, the bench recused itself from hearing the matter. Subsequently, the matter was mentioned before a division bench led by Justice Sarang Kotwal, who will be hearing the plea in March.