Despite court rulings, people continue to face difficulty in CID clearance: M.Y. Tarigami

CID clearance is a security verification carried out through the Criminal Investigation Department. It matters because people may need this clearance to pursue opportunities, although the article does not specify every job or process requiring it. The issue is whether security checks fairly assess the person applying.

In Kashmir, applicants can face difficulty even when the alleged misconduct involves relatives. Tarigami says some people are denied or delayed because of the alleged involvement of distant relatives in militancy-related activities. In some cases, the accused relatives died many years ago, yet their past still affects families.

The current concern is that clearance practices may continue despite High Court rulings. Tarigami wants the verification process reviewed. He says security concerns remain important, but they should not deny innocent people their rights and future opportunities because of relatives’ alleged actions.

M.Y. Tarigami is identified in the article as a CPI(M) leader and lawmaker. He is speaking about how security-clearance practices affect people in Kashmir. His concern is not that security checks should disappear, but that applicants should not be judged mainly through alleged actions linked to their relatives.

Tarigami says the High Court has ruled in several cases that a person cannot be denied security clearance simply because relatives were allegedly involved in militancy-related activities. Despite those rulings, he says people continue to face difficulties. He specifically points to cases involving even distant relatives.

He also highlights the lasting effect on families. Some accused relatives died many years ago, but their alleged past continues to affect younger generations. Tarigami wants the verification process reviewed so security concerns are balanced with individual rights and future opportunities for innocent people.

The High Court has ruled in several cases that a person should not lose security clearance merely because a relative is alleged to have been involved in militancy-related activities. The principle focuses on the applicant’s own situation rather than automatically transferring blame through family connections.

The article gives a clear example of the continuing conflict. Tarigami says people still face difficulties obtaining CID clearance because of the alleged involvement of even distant relatives. He adds that some accused relatives died many years ago, but their past continues to affect their families and younger generations.

These reported difficulties suggest that court rulings have not fully changed verification practices on the ground. Tarigami therefore seeks a review of the process. He says security concerns matter, but they should not override the rights and future opportunities of innocent applicants.

The article describes a potentially broad reach for family-based consequences. Tarigami says applicants can face difficulties because of the alleged involvement of even distant relatives in militancy-related activities. It does not provide a number of affected people, families, or opportunities.

The mechanism is indirect. An applicant’s clearance becomes difficult because authorities allegedly consider a relative’s past activities, rather than limiting assessment to the applicant. Tarigami says this can happen even when the accused person died many years ago. The connection can therefore remain relevant across generations.

The reported effect is access to opportunities, including opportunities for younger generations. The article does not identify specific jobs or institutions, so the exact scale cannot be measured from its facts. Tarigami’s proposed response is a review ensuring people are judged on their own conduct, while genuine security concerns remain considered.

Difficulty obtaining CID clearance can restrict families’ access to opportunities. The article does not list specific jobs or services, but it says younger generations may lose opportunities because of alleged actions by relatives. The central concern is inherited disadvantage rather than an applicant’s own conduct.

Tarigami gives the example of accused people who died many years ago. Their alleged past, he says, can still affect their families. Even distant family connections may be considered during verification. This creates a mechanism in which an applicant’s prospects are influenced by a relative’s alleged history, regardless of the applicant’s personal behavior.

The consequence is continuing harm across generations. People may face blocked or delayed opportunities through no fault of their own. Tarigami says the process should be reviewed so security checks remain important without sacrificing the rights and future of innocent people.

A fair security check should assess the individual seeking clearance. It should examine that person’s own conduct rather than assume responsibility for a relative’s alleged actions. This distinction matters because family connection alone does not establish that an applicant poses a security concern.

The article says High Court rulings have already addressed this principle. Yet Tarigami reports that people still struggle to obtain CID clearance because of alleged involvement by even distant relatives. In some cases, the relatives accused of wrongdoing died many years ago, but their alleged past continues to affect applicants.

Tarigami’s solution is to review the verification process. Security concerns should still be considered, but the assessment should separate evidence about the applicant from allegations involving relatives. That approach could reduce unfair effects on families and protect opportunities for people whose own conduct raises no stated concern.

Individual rights and due process rest on judging a person through their own conduct and circumstances. A relative’s alleged actions do not, by themselves, establish that the applicant did anything wrong. Treating family connection as decisive can therefore impose consequences without a personal finding against the applicant.

The article describes this concern in Kashmir. Tarigami says people may face clearance difficulties because of even distant relatives’ alleged militancy-related activities. He also says some accused relatives died many years ago. Their alleged past can still affect families and younger generations, despite no stated wrongdoing by those applicants.

This is why Tarigami links the issue to rights and future opportunities. He does not dismiss security concerns. Instead, he says verification should distinguish an individual’s conduct from relatives’ alleged actions. Reviewing the process could help ensure that security decisions are targeted while innocent people retain fair access to opportunities.