Whether Trial Court has jurisdiction to cancel the Look Out Circular ?

Look Out circular- PARAMETER OF withdrawal & QUASHING  discussed

Whether Trial Court has jurisdiction to cancel the LOC?

 

The Look Out Circular (LOC) is an instrument, more particularly, during the process of investigation, after registration of F.I.R , whereby police issues such circular against the accused, who , according to them may be a flight risk, being required in the investigation of case or cases owing to palpable role in the offence. Generally, the measures are extra-ordinary and are not adopted as a matter of course, but, if such an accused may be wanted in serious offence or offences the course is adopted However, there are instances when the LOC itself could be coloured exercise of power at the behest of a resourceful complainant. The deliberation on this aspect is therefore a must. Hence, this discussion.

In order to analyse the gravamen of judgments passed by the Courts of law shall be of immense significance. It is apt in the context, thus, to refer to a recent judgment passed by the hon’ble Delhi High Court in a matter captioned as Vineet Gupta & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors WP ( C) 7850/2026 and the date of judgment is 10.02.2026.

FACTS of the case

(i)     Petition for quashing of LOC was filed by the petitioners no.1 and 2 and suspension of LOC for their impending visits to United States of America and United Kingdom and as regards petitioner no.2, the contemplation was to visit Indonesia, Thailand,  Vietnam & Cambodia.

(ii) The very reason of issuance of LOC being their alleged association as a promoter/director of a limited company that availed credit facilities from a consortium of banks, including Union of India. The account of the company was declared as “fraud” by the respondents on 03.05.2016 and 18.05.2018, pursuant thereto complaints were filed with the CBI and FIR No. RCBD/2021/E/0010 was registered u/s 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and u/s 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the {Prevention of Corruption Act 1988( In short “PCA”).Thereafter, Enforce3ment Directorate (ED) had also registered ECIR bearing No. CDZO-I/01/2022 dated 06.01.2022.

(iii) The reasons given for permission to travel abroad was to meet his daughters and spend time with family and as regards the petitioner no.2 the reasons ascribed was to attend the wedding of his childhood friend’s daughter and to spend time with his family and close friends.

(iv)   earlier, the Delhi High Court had permitted the petitioners to visit abroad and the terms of the orders were duly complied with.

(v)     It is also apparent that the petitioners were granted permission to travel abroad by the Special Courts. The LOC issued by CBI was stated to be closed in the meanwhile and  hence, not in force, but the ED opposed the application on the premise that the fraud was of high magnitude.

In the above backdrop, the Delhi High Court opted to deal with the petition itself on merits.

 

It is acknowledged by the court at the very outset under paragraph 10 as  under:

10. “the freedom of movement , both domestic and foreign constituted a core and inalienable facets of personal liberty and operates as an indispensable precondition for the holistic development of human personality and livelihood.
In foreign jurisprudence, the freedom to travel has been recognised as a vital incident of individual liberty, shielded by the guarantee of due process of law embedded within the nation’s constitutional heritage. Freedom of movement across frontiers, as part of the nation’s constitutional heritage, emphasises its intimate connection with personal choice and human dignity”.

The aforesaid is in e4ssence, preamble to freedom of movement. The Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life and personal liberty. The freedom emanates from the rights, in essence secures constitutional protection and no fetter could be attached thereto, unless, restrictions are necessitated in apt cases, but only by a procedure 3establsihed by law that is just, fair and reasonable.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court has noted the evolution and guidelines governing the LOC in Anant Raj Kanoria vs Union of India & Anr in WP (C) 3313/2023.

The Delhi High Court has earlier deliberated in (i) Vikram Sharma Vs Union of India 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2475 and (ii) in Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asst Director 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 and elucidated the legal framework relating to issuance of LOC. In case an accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in trial court despite issuance of non-bailable warrants or such coercive measures and the prospect of the accused leaving the country in such circumstances may be imminent, the LOC may be necessary. The questions raised before the High Court were as under:

A. What are the categories of the cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of LOC and under what circumstances?

B. What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency opening a Look-out-circular?

C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out-circular has been opened?

D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought it and under what circumstances, the sub-ordinate court can intervene?

answers

A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by Investigating agency in cognisable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in trial court and despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home affairs, giving details and reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.

C. The person against whom LOC Is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O or should surrender in the Court concerned or should satisfy the Court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.

D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts' jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.

What therefore emerges is that even the Sessions Court/trial Court can affirm or cancel the LOC in a manner the sub-ordinate courts are empowered to cancel NBW. Generally, though, the writ jurisdiction is invoked by the petitioners seeking cancelling/quashing of LOC, though, for interim order or suspension, a petitioner/accused approaches district court/trial court for suspension of LOC.

In the above backdrop, the Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a comprehensive Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, reiterating that the issuance of LOCs to cases involving cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal statutes. The subsequent amendments, including the Office Memorandum dated 05.12.2017, further limited the scope of LOCs in exceptional circumstances, where the departure of a person was considered prejudicial to the sovereignty, security, integrity of India, bilateral relations, strategic or economic interests, or larger public interest, with further modifications effected by the memorandums dated 19.09.2018 and 12.10.2018.

Karti P. Chidambaram case

In the context of the aforenoted office memoranda, in Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229,  the Madras High Court held that a LOC is a coercive executive measure which directly impinges upon personal liberty and, therefore, cannot be issued in a mechanical or routine manner. It was observed that under the governing guidelines, an LOC can be resorted to only when there exists tangible material indicating deliberate evasion of arrest or a real likelihood of the individual fleeing the country.

CONSOLIDATION of directions for issuance of LOC

With a view to consolidate the directions for issuance of LOCs, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a comprehensive Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021, which presently governs the law with respect to the issuance of LOCs. The relevant extract of said Office Memorandum is as under :-

“6. The existing guidelines with regard to issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOC) in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners have been reviewed by this Ministry. After due deliberations in consultation with various stakeholders and in suppression of all the existing guidelines issued vide this Ministry's letters/O.M, it has been decided with the approval of the competent authority that the following consolidated guidelines shall be followed henceforth by all concerned for the purpose of issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOC) in respect of Indian citizens and foreigners:- xxx xxx xxx

(H) Recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws. The details in column IV in the enclosed proforma regarding „reason for opening LOC‟ must invariably be provided without which the subject of an LOC will not be arrested/detained.

(I) In cases where there is no cognizable offence under IPC or other penal laws, the LOC subject cannot be detained/arrested or prevented from leaving the country. The originating agency can only request that they be informed about the arrival/departure of the subject in such cases xxx xxx

(L) In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases, as may not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in clause (B) above, if it appears to such authority based on inputs received that the departure of such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time.

 

The aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 along with earlier amendments issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs governing the issuance of LOCs, and their  validity was tested by the Bombay High Court along with earlier amendments issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs governing the issuance of LOCs, in a batch of petitions, the lead matter being Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 SCC ONLINEBOM 1195.  The principal challenge was to the constitutional validity of amendments which enabled the Chairmen, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of public sector banks to seek issuance of LOCs against defaulting borrowers, thereby restraining their right to travel abroad.

It was contended therein that such executive instructions permitted a serious curtailment of personal liberty without any statutory backing or prescribed procedure, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the right to travel abroad being an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty, and hence, it cannot be curtailed or restricted by executive fiat, particularly in matters arising out of civil or commercial defaults.

After consideration of the issues raised, the Bombay High Court had reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an integral component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any restriction upon it must be founded on law and must follow a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable. It was categorically held that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed through executive instructions alone, in the absence of a governing statute or a controlling statutory framework and that the Office Memoranda, viewed in their entirety, could not be characterised as per se arbitrary or unconstitutional, so as to warrant their wholesale invalidation. Nonetheless, the Court found a grave constitutional infirmity in the inclusion of Chairmen, Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks under Clause 6(B)(xv) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. Such inclusion was held to be bad in law, being arbitrary and unreasonable, founded on an improper and invalid classification, and resulting in the conferment of unguided, and excessive power upon bank officials to seek restrictions on personal liberty without any statutory guidance or procedural safeguards.

It may be relevant to mention, however, that the hon’ble Supreme Court was approached in a Special Leave Petition filed, assailing the decision in Viraj Chetan Shah (Supra). However, the decision of the Bombay High Court has not been stayed.

The Delhi High Court has considered the judgment rendered in Viraj Chetan Shah (Supra) in Sahil Chugh v. Union of India W.P.(C) 6623/2024, wherein, it was held that LOC issued at the behest of a public sector bank against borrowers/directors merely on account of loan default or declaration as wilful defaulters, in the absence of any criminal proceedings, are unsustainable in law. It was emphasized that the expression “detrimental to the economic interests of India” under the MHA guidelines is meant for exceptional cases involving grave, systemic or national economic impact, and not routine commercial defaults. Since in the facts of the case therein no FIR, charge-sheet, or cognizable offence was pending against the petitioner, and the disputes were purely civil and pending before the DRT, the Court quashed the LOC as arbitrary and disproportionate. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision is extracted as under:-

21. It is well settled that merely because the Office Memorandum permits the issuance of a lookout circular in exceptional circumstances, even when an individual is not involved in any offence under the IPC or any other penal law, the said power should be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.

22. This Court in Apurve Goel v. Bureau of Immigration, W.P.(C) 5674/2023, has held as under:—

“22. The Look Out Circulars cannot be opened merely on the request of the banks. There has to be some application of mind by the authority concerned opening the Look Out Circular since the opening of Look Out Circular results in restraining a person's right to travel abroad. The authority opening the Look Out Circular must satisfy itself that the departure of a person against whom Look Out Circular has been opened would be detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relationship with any country or to the economic interests of India or departure of such a person ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point in time.”

23. It is well settled that mere inability to pay money without there being a criminal case cannot be a reason to take away the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to travel abroad has been held to be a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which cannot be taken away in an arbitrary and illegal manner.

24. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Apex Court has held as under: “5. …Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that it lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney-General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law….”

25. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in a batch of writ petitions vide Judgment dated 23.04.2024 in Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, W.P.(C)719/2020 etc. has quashed Clause 8(b)(xv) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 bearing O.M. 23016/31/2010-Imm. equivalent to Clause 6(B)(xv) of the O.M. dated 22.02.2021 bearing O.M. 25016/10/2017-Imm.(Pt.) whereby the Chairman/ Managing Director/ Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks could request for opening of an LOC. The effect of the said judgment is that the Chairman/Managing Director/Chief Executives of the Public Sector Banks cannot make a request for issuance of LOC.

26. The issuance of lookout circular cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan defaults or credit facilities availed for business and the Fundamental Right of a citizen of the country to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of failure to pay a bank loan more so when the person against whom the lookout circular is opened has not been even arrayed as an accused in any offence for misappropriation or siphoning off the loan amounts.”

The aforesaid judgment of ld single judge of Delhi High Court was challenged by one of the respondents therein, namely, Bank of Baroda before the division bench in Bank of Baroda v. Sahil Chugh 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9282 The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, has held as under :-

“16….Learned counsel for the appellant bank was unable to provide any counter argument or judgment to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay vide its judgment dated 23.04.2024 in W.P.(C) 719/2020 titled Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, whereby Clause 8 (b) (xv) of the OM dated 27.10.2010 which was equivalent to Clause 6(B)(xv) of the OM dated 22.02.2021, empowering the Chairman/Managing Director/Chief Executive of all Public Sector banks who could make request for opening an LOC, was quashed. The very right, authority and jurisdiction of the Principal Officers of the Public Sector Banks to make a request for issuance of LOC having been divested, the question of relying on the OM issued by the Ministry of Finance etc., would be rendered meaningless. Thus, the contention predicated on the said OM is unpersuasive”.

 Yet again, Delhi High Court Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4153 has held as under:

“18. In terms of the said OM, an LOC can be issued at the request of the Chairman/Managing Directors/Chief Executive of all Public Sector Banks. A request is given by a person, who is authorized under the said OM, to the Bureau of Immigration and then the Bureau of Immigration at the request of the said Officer opens the Lookout Circular.

19. The Office Memorandum indicates that the legal liability of the action taken by the immigration authorities in pursuance of the Lookout Circular rests with the Originating Agency, in this case, the Bank of Baroda.

20. Clause L of the Office Memorandum of 2021, as quoted above, states that in exceptional cases, an LOC can be issued at the instance of the Bank if the authorities are of the view that letting the person to depart from the country will be detrimental to the economic interests of India.

21. A perusal of the abovementioned Clause L of the Office Memorandum shows that in exceptional circumstances Lookout Circulars can be issued even in such cases which are not covered by the said guidelines which can be issued even when there is no criminal case against the person and person against whom investigation is pending and if it appears to the authorities based on the inputs that the departure of such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or bilateral relations or the strategic and/or economic interests of India. the term “detrimental to the economic interests of India‟ has been well defined in several judgments. ***

25. Lookout Circular has been issued against the Petitioner only because of the inability of the company to repay its debts for which the Petitioner stood guarantee. There are no criminal proceedings against the Petitioner and there is no allegation that the Petitioner was instrumental in defalcation or siphoning off the money. The Bank has already initiated steps against the Petitioner and the company by taking steps under the RDDB Act, SARFAESI Act and under the IBC. This Court is of the opinion that after resorting to all the remedies available in law, the Bank cannot open a Lookout Circular as an arm-twisting tactic to recover debt from a person who is otherwise unable to pay more so when there are no allegations that he was engaged in any fraud or in any siphoning off or defalcation of the amounts given as loan.

26. Lookout Circular is a major impediment for a person who wants to travel abroad. There is plethora of judgments which states that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad other than for very compelling reasons. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Apex Court has held as under:—

“5. …Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that it lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney-General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law….”

27. In view of the above, the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against the Petitioner is hereby quashed.

 

In Shalini Khanna v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 837 also, this Court held as under: -

“20. Though Paragraph (L) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum permits the Banks to issue a request for opening a lookout circular, in exceptional cases, even if they are not covered by the guidelines, even in such of those cases, the same can be issued only if departure of such person is detrimental to the sovereignty or security of the country, or departure of the person is threat to the bilateral relations to any country, or to the strategic or economic interest of the country, or if such person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in acts of terrorism or offences against State or that such departure ought not be permitted in larger public interest at any given point of time.

21. It is well settled that merely because the Office Memorandum permits the issuance of a lookout circular in exceptional circumstances, even when an individual is not involved in any offence under the IPC or any other penal law, the said power should be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.

22. The term “detrimental to the economic interests‟ must be of such a magnitude that it can significantly affect the economic interest of the country. In the present case, the total loan amount disbursed is about Rs. 7 crores and even if one adds the interest to it, it cannot be said that the amount is so large that it will affect the economic interests of the country.

23. The issuance of lookout circular cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan defaults or credit facilities availed for business and the Fundamental Right of a citizen of the country to travel abroad cannot be curtailed only because of failure to pay a bank loan more so when the person against whom the lookout circular is opened has not been even arrayed as an accused in any offence for misappropriation or siphoning off the loan amounts.”

In Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5170 the Delhi High Court has held that mere association or a familial relationship with an accused, in absence of any concrete material showing direct involvement or complicity in the alleged offence, cannot justify adverse action such as denial of security clearance or the continuation of coercive measures.

The Delhi High Court, yet again, a  comprehensive discussion about LOC validity also followed in Puja Chadha v. Directorate of Enforcement 2025:DHC:8787 it is held as under:

13 The Court, while relying on the decisions in the cases of Prashant Bothra v. Bureau of Immigration 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2643, Dhruv Tewari v. Directorate of Enforcement 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1893, Sumer Singh Salkan , Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. Union of India 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587 and Anastasiia Pivtsaeva, held that the power to issue an LOC is an exceptional and coercive measure which has a direct bearing on an individual‟s fundamental right to travel, and therefore must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. Emphasising the aforesaid, this Court in the case of Sandeep Dhanuka v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8280.,

In Prashant Bothra v. Bureau of Immigration., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2643, it was held as under:

“39. In the present case, as rightly pointed by learned counsel for the petitioners, the stage of investigation within the contemplation of Section 212(1) - (4) of the 2013 Act is not yet over. Thus, as of today, whatever may the allegations against the petitioners or the Company of which they were Directors and guarantors, the same cannot tantamount to a cognizable offence against the petitioners.

It is now settled that opening of an LOC has a very serious effect on a person's fundamental right to travel abroad which is on the face of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said right to travel cannot be curtailed without following due process. It is also settled law that recourse to LOC can be taken by the Investigating Agencies primarily when there is a cognizable offence under IPC or in any other penal laws or where the accused is deliberately evading the arrest and not appearing before Court despite summons being served on him or issuance of non-bailable warrants or when other coercive measures have been taken by the Court to ensure his appearance in the Court and that there is likelihood of the accused to leave the country to evade such trial or arrest.

The LOCs are also being issued at the instance of Investigating Agencies where apprehension is raised by the Investigating Agencies that the person who is alleged of committing an offence might escape the clutches of law by leaving the country. However, the law is also getting crystallized that merely because there are some revenue implications, the LOC cannot be opened against a person (Ref:  Priya Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India, [2015 VII AD (Delhi) 10] has held that merely because there were some revenue implications due to notices issued by the Income Tax Authorities, the violations of tax laws are not demonstrative of the fact that the Petitioner therein had acted inimical to the economic interests of the country.

The Delhi High Court, after having analysed law as aforementioned,  governing LOC and parameter of its issuance has held in Vineet Gupta (Supra) that mechanical continuation of a LOC, in absence of any necessity for the petitioner’s participation in the investigation, renders such restrain arbitrary, more so, if the accused had neither evaded the process of law nor have exhibited intent of obstructing the investigation.  The guiding principles are thus, again enumerated in Vineet Gupta (Supra) and the same are illustrated as under:

 

(i) LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a substantial impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the power to issue an LOC must be exercised sparingly, strictly in accordance with law, and only upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under the governing Office Memoranda;

(ii) An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable offence under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible material demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately evading arrest or judicial process, or that there exists a real and proximate likelihood of absconding;

(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly construed and may be exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where, the proposed departure of subject poses a clear and grave threat to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or to its strategic or economic interests in a national or systemic sense, or the larger public interest;

(iv) An LOC issued at the instance of Chairman, Managing Director, or Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks, would not withstand the scrutiny of law and judicial review. Thus, as of now, the LOC issued to Public Sector Banks cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed;

(v) Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are duty-bound to subject the issuance and continuation of LOCs to strict scrutiny, balancing the legitimate interests of the State with the individual‟s fundamental rights, and to quash such circulars where the restraint imposed is found to be arbitrary, disproportionate, lacking in statutory backing, or violative of the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process. Ultimately, the burden lies squarely upon the “originating agencies” to justify, the necessity, proportionality, and legality of the restraint, failing which such action cannot be sustained. Pertinent to observe that the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must be periodically reviewed. Where it is evident from the record that the subject has cooperated with the investigation, has not evaded the process of law, and where no further interrogation or presence is demonstrably required, the continued operation of an LOC would amount to an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty;

(vi) However, it is also to be emphasised herein that the Writ Court is not the exclusive grievance redressal mechanism available to a person against whom a LOC has been issued. As held in Sumer Singh Salkan, a person against whom a LOC is issued is, in the first instance, required to join the investigation or surrender before the jurisdictional Court, or otherwise satisfy the Court that the LOC is unwarranted. The individual may also approach the authority which ordered issuance of the LOC and seek its withdrawal on the grounds of illegality or non-application of mind. An LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority and may also be rescinded or modified by the trial Court or the Court having jurisdiction over the concerned police station, upon an appropriate application.

In Vineet Gupta (Supra), thus, the Delhi High Court has categorically held that there are no justification to continue the LOC in the instant case and it was quashed, albeit, the petitioner was directed to submit an undertaking before the concerned Special Judge, PMLA Court and Special Judge, CBI Court affirming that they shall continue to co-operate in the investigation and shall appear before the trial court as and when required and as long as trial is pending prior permission shall have to be obtained from trial court for visiting abroad.

                                        -----

Anil K Khaware

Founder & Senior Associate

Societylawandjustice.com