Madras High Court Administrative and Public Law Immigration and Citizenship Law

After Italian Authorities Rejected London-Issued PCC, Madras HC Directs FRROs To Decide British OCI Holder’s India PCC Applications In 2 Weeks

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided November 13, 2026Published 13 November 2026 at 6:41 pm IST1 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s applications for a Police Clearance Certificate should be considered by the FRRO authorities and determined by appropriate orders.

The court held

The Court directed respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner’s PCC applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks from 13 November 2026.

It also directed

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner, a British citizen and OCI cardholder, had lived in Kodaikanal for schooling from 20 July 1999 to 19 May 2001.

p. 3

In connection with an application for Italian citizenship by marriage, he sought a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) relating to his stay in India.

p. 4

The Indian High Commission in London had issued a PCC, but the Italian authorities required one from the competent Indian police authority.

p. 4

The petitioner then applied to the FRRO; his applications were not processed, reportedly because of technical and jurisdictional difficulties.

p. 4

He filed this Article 226 petition seeking a direction to process the applications.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s applications for a Police Clearance Certificate should be considered by the FRRO authorities and determined by appropriate orders.

p. 4

ii.2. Whether the Court should direct the authorities to decide the applications within a specified time.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The Court acted under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as invoked in the petition.

p. 2

It directed the authorities to consider the applications and pass appropriate orders “in accordance with law”.

p. 4

The judgment cites no specific statute, regulatory provision, or precedent governing issuance of a PCC.

04Reasoning

The petitioner had submitted PCC applications, but they remained unprocessed despite follow-ups and the provision of available documents.

p. 4

Without deciding whether the petitioner was entitled to a PCC, the Court considered it appropriate to require the designated FRRO authorities to consider the applications and make a decision in accordance with law.

p. 4

It imposed a two-week timeframe.

p. 4

05Holding

The Court directed respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner’s PCC applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks from 13 November 2026.

p. 4

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

p. 4

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF