I have been surprised that this question has not come up more often. So far as I have seen, there is sparse anecdotal reporting about this, going either way.
Short Answer:
As long as it is a truthful response, it is OK to check [No] for item 10.b) in the application and submit the application without a police clearance certificate. The application will be complete and processed.
It is another matter, however, whether or not in this scenario the applicant is LATER asked to provide a PCC, or whether due to the applicant's time in India there is a later referral to make non-routine inquiries, complicating or delaying the background checks done in processing the application. That is, in this scenario it is not clear whether there is a risk (let alone how much of a risk) the applicant will encounter non-routine processing and potential delays.
And it is not clear whether checking [Yes] anyway and including the PCC will reduce or eliminate such a risk.
Longer Answer:
For clarity:
The applicant can truthfully answer [No] in response to item 10.b) in the application, since it is true the applicant was not in India for 183 days, or more, in a row. If the applicant checks [No] in response to item 10.b) the applicant is not required to list India in the chart, and not required to provide a police clearance
WITH the APPLICATION.
Let's be clear, however, what that is about: it is about what is necessary to make a complete application, an application which will be put "in process." This does NOT necessarily mean that IRCC will be satisfied the applicant is clear of any foreign criminal cases constituting a prohibition.
To reiterate for emphasis:
The [No] response is NOT misrepresentation. So it is, as others have noted, technically OK.
A [No] response means no police clearance needs to be submitted with the application.
Beyond that it would be reasonable to conclude that if IRCC really means to ask whether the applicant was living or residing in another country for six months or more, that would be the question asked, or at least there would be an instruction clarifying how to answer item 10.b)
So, for purposes of meeting what is required to submit a complete application, answering [No] and not including a police clearance certificate, works, and should be OK . . .
. . . at least OK in the sense that (1) the application will be processed, and (2) answering this way will not disqualify the applicant.
BUT . . . But there is, of course, a contrary "reasonable" interpretation of 10.b), focusing on the absence of the term "present" or "physically present," such that a reasonable understanding of the question does not depend on parsing "
were you in a country" to be about or limited to actual physical presence in the country continually but about where one was, in effect, generally, in another country for a six month or longer period of time.
Sidebar: This illustrates that what is "reasonable" is not necessarily one definite thing. Sometimes rather different things, even conflicting things, can both be "reasonable." This often comes up when a court reviews the decisions made by an agency, or a Citizenship Judge for example. The court might disagree with the decision but if it can be said that the agency's decision was "reasonable," then the court must nonetheless uphold the decision.
What To Do?
Again, I have been surprised that this question has not come up more often. So far as I have seen, there is sparse anecdotal reporting about this, going either way.
As addressed above. Answering 10.b) [No] is not (at least should not) be considered misrepresentation. No need to submit a PCC if the answer to 10.b) is no.
Waiting ten weeks, and especially so in the current situation (in which routine processing is likely to be closer to two years rather than one), is NOT a long wait. And would add a nice buffer margin (assuming the applicant remains in Canada). So a prudent applicant might easily think (1) waiting is good anyway, and (2) it will be OK to answer [Yes] since in a general sense I was in the other country for more than six months (even though not every day of that was being actually physically present in that country), (3) and including a PCC will avoid the appearance of misrepresentation and at the same time provide documentation I have no criminal case constituting a prohibition in that country.
As I have often said, waiting longer to apply can sometime mean getting to the date the oath is actually taken is sooner. I am not at all sure this is one of those situations. If making the choice for myself, I'd lean toward waiting, toward checking [Yes] and including the PCC.
Reminder: in the actual presence calculation the "trip" abroad will be reported with a date of exit from Canada and entry into Canada spanning a period of time well in excess of 180 days, and in the "Destination box" there will be just one country listed. The applicant is instructed to list additional countries visited during that "trip" abroad, in the box for explaining the purpose of the trip. To what extent this will be readily noticed and contrasted with a [No] response to item 10.b), triggering questions, is difficult to guess. That's at least a part of the risk.
