2. PRANAV GUPTA S/O SHRI JAI DEV GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENT AT H. NO. 481, SECTOR 6, PANCHKULA, HARYANA - 134109 INDIAN CITIZEN HAVING PASSPORT BEARING NO - C8875594 …PETITIONER NO. 2 Through: Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Si

10. Before delving into the discussion of the legal explication of the regulatory framework governing the issuance of LOCs and the facts of the instant case, it is apposite to note that freedom of movement, both domestic and foreign, constitutes a core and inalienable facet of personal liberty and operates as an indispensable precondition for the holistic development of the 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 and 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.[1]

11. Moreover, in the Indian constitutional framework, the right to travel and freedom of movement has been recognised as an intrinsic facet of the fundamental right to life and “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2 The Supreme Court has held that while this freedom is not expressly enumerated under any articles, it nonetheless commands constitutional protection and may be restricted only by a procedure established by law that is just, fair, and reasonable.

12. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, it is pertinent to delineate the evolution of the guidelines governing the issuance of LOCs. As already noted by this Court recently in Anant Raj Kanoria V. Union of India & Anr,[3] the earliest instructions emanated from a letter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 05.09.1979, which authorised various agencies to monitor the arrival and departure of Indian citizens as well as foreigners. Thereafter, a more structured framework, confined to Indian citizens, was introduced by the Office Memorandum dated 27.12.2000.

13. However, in 2010, this Court in Vikram Sharma v. Union of India[4] and Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director[5] further elucidated the legal framework governing the issuance of LOC. In Sumer Singh Salkan, the Court held that recourse to issuance of LOC where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court despite nonbailable warrants and other coercive measures, and there was a likelihood of Reference to Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.(1978 1 SCC 248) W.P.(C) 3313/2023 dated 09.01.2026 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2475 the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest should be taken. The Court, while answering the reference, held as under:- “11. Look-out-Circular has also been issued against the petitioner as the petitioner is an accused the Court of M.M. and he has not appeared the Court of M.M. If the petitioner gives an undertaking the court for his appearance on a particular date, through his counsel, the Look-out- Circular issued against the petitioner shall be withdrawn within 24 hours of giving undertaking by the petitioner. The questions raised in the reference are as under:

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.

14. Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a comprehensive Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, which confined the issuance of LOCs to cases involving cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal statutes, and restricted non-cognizable matters to intimation of travel movements only.

15. 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.

16. It is pertinent to note that in the context of the aforenoted office memoranda, in Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration[6], 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. The Court 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.

17. However, in order 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:-

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. W.P.(C) 6623/2024

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:

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.”

22. One of the respondents therein, i.e, Bank of Baroda, challenged the aforenoted decision of the Single Judge before the Division Bench in Bank of Baroda v. Sahil Chugh.[9] The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, has held as under:-

23. It is also pertinent to note the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India.10 The relevant extract of the aforenoted decision reads as under: -

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

24. In Shalini Khanna v. Union of India,11 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 2024 SCC OnLine Del 837 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.”

25. Moreover, in Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.12, this Court held that mere association or a familial relationship with an accused, absent 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.

26. A comprehensive discussion of the law with respect to LOC has also been undertaken by the Court in Puja Chadha v. Directorate of 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5170 Enforcement.13 The Court, while relying on the decisions in the cases of Prashant Bothra v. Bureau of Immigration 14 Dhruv Tewari v. Directorate of Enforcement 15 Sumer Singh Salkan, Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. Union of India16 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, 17 has also dealt with various aspects of the issuance of LOC and its continuation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision reads as under:-

42. In Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director (supra), the Court has observed as under - “The questions raised in the reference are as under:

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.”

43. In Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587, this Court has made the following observation - “14…….An LOC has the effect of seriously jeopardising the right to travel of an individual. The settled legal position, as per the judgment in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) is that unless and until there is an FIR which is lodged or a criminal case which is pending, an LOC cannot be issued.

18. It is clear from a perusal of clauses (g), (h) and (j) that unless and until the conditions in these clauses are satisfied, prima-facie an LOC cannot be opened.

19. There is no criminal case pending against the Petitioner. His role is also yet to be ascertained by the investigating authorities. Phrases such as „economic interest‟ or „larger public interest‟ cannot be expanded in a manner so as to include an Independent Director who was in the past associated with the company being investigated, without any specific role being attributed to him, as in the present case……”

44. Similarly in Ashutosh Sharma v. Union Of India., W.P. (C) 7769 of 2022, the Court has observed as under -

45. Reference is also apposite to Hulas Rahul Gupta v. Bureau of Immigration (supra), wherein the Court has observed as under -

18. The abovementioned guidelines show that the ordinary recourse to open LOCs is to be taken in cognizable offence under IPC and other penal laws. However, in exceptional circumstances, LOCs can be opened in such cases which are not covered by the guidelines if it is felt that the person concerned if leaves the country would be against the economic interest of the country.

19. It is now a settled law 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.

20. 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. A Single Bench of this Court in 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.

27. Recently, this Court in Anant Raj Kannoria, Vineet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors18, Maria Ramesh V. Union of India & Ors19 and Ritwick Dutta v. Union of India & Ors 20 has also examined the various aspects of the legal framework governing the issuance of LOC. In Anant Raj Kannoria, this Court has held that the mechanical continuation of a LOC, in the absence of any necessity for the petitioner's participation in the W.P.(C) 15701/2022 dt 22.01.2026 W.P.(C) 15701/2022 dt. 27.01.2026 investigation, renders such restraint prima facie arbitrary, particularly where the petitioner has neither evaded the process of law nor exhibited any intent to obstruct the investigation. The Court further observed that repeated invocation of the writ jurisdiction for interim reliefs in such matters places an avoidable burden on judicial time, which could otherwise be devoted to cases involving substantive rights and pressing questions of law.

28. On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum, it is seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the issuance, continuance, and judicial review of LOC:

(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 W.P.(C) 12862/2023 dt. 02.02.2026 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.

29. On the anvil of the aforesaid discussion, there does not seem to be any justification to continue the existence of the LOC(s) in the instant case. Accordingly, LOC(s) is quashed with the following directions: i. The petitioners to submit an undertaking before the Special Judge, PMLA Court, Chandigarh and the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, affirming that they shall continue to cooperate with the investigation, if any, and they shall appear before the concerned trial Court as and when required, rendering full cooperation in the early disposal of trial. ii. Henceforth, they shall undertake abroad journey with the prior permission is obtained from the competent Courts, where the trial is pending.

30. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of along with all pending applications.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 10, 2026/p/mj.