Delhi High Court
Shivani Modi vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 May, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~1, 15, 22, 25, 33, 34, 41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15.05.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF:
1
+ W.P.(C) 3100/2022, CM APPL. 24128/2023, CM APPL.
32523/2024 & CM APPL. 15879/2025
SHIVANI MODI .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
15
+ W.P.(C) 7051/2024 & CM APPL. 29420/2024
AMRIT DUJARI .....Petitioner
versus
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & ANR. .....Respondent
22
+ W.P.(C) 1978/2025
HARMANDEEP SINGH KANDHARI .....Petitioner
versus
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & ORS. .....Respondents
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 1 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
25
+ W.P.(C) 6745/2025
SAMIR SHARMA
.....Petitioner
versus
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & ANR. .....Respondents
33
+ W.P.(C) 16047/2025
HU LIU .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
34
+ W.P.(C) 18435/2025 & CM APPL. 76320/2025
M THIAGARAJAN .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
41
+ W.P.(C) 3492/2026 & CM APPL. 16852/2026
ATUL PUNJ .....Petitioner
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 2 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Memo of Appearances:
On behalf of petitioners:
Mr. Vivek Chib, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa, Mr. Bhargav R. Thali, Mr.
Siddharth Jain, Mr. Siddharth Sunil, Mr. Mayank Khaitan, Mr. Vibhu
Pahuja, Mr. Zeeshan Thomas, Advocates in item 1.
Mr. Vikas Mehta, Ms. Priyambada Mishra, Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advocates in
item 15.
Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priti Verma, Ms. Dhanya
Visweswaran, Ms. Shaurya Singh, Ms. Kashvi Bansal, Advocates in item
22.
Counsel in item 25 (appearance not given)
Mr Sanjeev Anand Sr. Adv with Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Pranav Mundra,
Mr. Balraaj Singh and Mr. Rishabh Dahiya, Advocates in item 33.
Mr Aditya Wadhwa, Ms Swastika Thourwal, Mr Raunaq Bali, Advocates in
item 34.
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv with Mr. Aditya Dewan, Ms Himangi Kapoor
and Mr. Swetank Kumar, Advocates in item 41.
On behalf of respondents:
Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Adv. for R-1
in item 1.
Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Ms. Monica Benjamin, JSC, Mr. Gibran Naushad,
JSC, Mr. Rohit Chakraborty, Advocates in item 1.
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Mr. Amit Acharya, GPs
for UOI in item 15.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Adv,
Mr. Tribhuvan, Adv and Ms. Anushka Sarraf, Advocates in item 22.
Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Mr. Rattan Goyal, Mr. Yash Basoya, Mr.
Inderpreet Singh and Mr. Kunal Dixit, Advs. for R-1 in item 25.
Mr Gaurav Gupta SSC, Mr Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr Yojit Pareek, JSC, Mr
Surya Jindal, Ms Prakriti Rastogi and Ms Aryama Singh Rajput, Advs. for
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 3 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
R-2 in item 25.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Arpan Narwal,
Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr.Ujjwal Tyagi, Mr. Dalip Anand, Advocates for
UOI in item 33.
Mr Santosh Kumar Rout SC for R-2/Indian Bank for item 34.
Mr. Akshit Mohan, Advocate and Government Pleader for Union of India in
item 41.
Mr. Ripudamn Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kansal and Mr. Amit
Kumar Rana, Advs. for SFIO in item 41.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
INDEX
A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ………………………………………………. 5
B. THE LAW OF LOCs ……………………………………………………………………………… 7
C. INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE ON THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL ….. 13
D. ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
I. LOCs ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS/BANKS ……………………………………………………………………… 18
(i) W.P.(C) 18435/2025 ……………………………………………………………………… 18
II. LOCs ISSUED BY INVESTIGATING AGENCIES AND MINISTERIES 22
(ii) W.P.(C) 3100/2022………………………………………………………………………. 22
(iii) W.P.(C) 1978/2025 …………………………………………………………………….. 24
(iv) W.P.(C) 6745/2025 ……………………………………………………………………… 26
(v) W.P.(C) 16047/2025 …………………………………………………………………….. 28
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 4 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
(vi) W.P.(C) 3492/2026 ……………………………………………………………………… 29
III. APPROPRIATINESS OF RELEGATING THE PETITIONER TO THE
FORUM THAT ISSUED THE LOC ………………………………………………………. 32
(vii). W.P.(C) 7051/2024……………………………………………………………………. 34
D. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………………. 36
A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The present petitions have been listed before this Court for disposal
on a common day. All of them assail the issuance and continuation of Look
Out Circulars (hereinafter “LOCs”), operating either at the behest of public
sector financial institutions (Banks) or at the instance of investigating
agencies and statutory bodies.
2. The issues that arise for determination in these petitions are not
unfamiliar; this Court has had occasion to deal with them at considerable
length and depth in a preceding batch judgment, Ritu Singal v. Bureau of
Immigration &Ors.1, decided on 17.04.2026, disposing of 33 writ petitions
(hereinafter “Preceding Judgment”). The present judgment must,
therefore, be read and understood as a companion and continuation of that
batch, forming together a consistent and coherent judicial statement on the
law governing LOCs.
3. In the Preceding Judgment, after a comprehensive survey of
constitutional provisions, regulatory instruments, and the full arc of judicial
authority from this Court as well as from sister High Courts and the
Supreme Court of India, this Court distilled ten governing principles that
1
2026:DHC:3806.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 5 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
now constitute the operative legal framework for the issuance, continuance,
and judicial review of LOCs.
4. In particular, this Court held, inter alia: that the right to travel abroad
is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution; that an LOC is a
coercive measure of last resort and not a routine instrument of law
enforcement or debt recovery; that public sector banks, through their
Chairman, Managing Directors, or Chief Executive Officers, do not possess
legal authority to seek the issuance of an LOC following the decisions in
Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India and the judgments of this Court
following it; and that the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must
be periodically reviewed.
5. These writ petitions have been categorised into three broad classes for
the purposes of discussion, analysis, and disposal, namely: Category A —
cases where the Look Out Circular has been issued solely at the instance of
financial institutions; Category B — cases where the Look Out Circular has
been issued at the instance of ministries and investigating agencies; and
Category C — cases where petitioner is relegated to the forum that issued
LOC. Each category raises distinct, though interrelated, legal issues which
shall be addressed in the appropriate sequence in this judgment.
6. At the outset, it must be recorded that the principles laid down in the
Preceding Judgment are taken as settled and shall not be departed from. The
present judgment proceeds on the foundation already laid. What this Court is
called upon to do in these eight petitions is to apply those principles to
individual facts which, the respondents contend, make out a positive case for
sustaining the LOC.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 6 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
7. In the Preceding Judgment, the LOCs were quashed across the board
because the originating agencies failed entirely to discharge the burden
placed upon them to justify necessity, proportionality, and legality.
8. Before proceeding to the analysis of individual petitions, it is
appropriate to revisit and further elaborate the legal framework,
incorporating subsequent developments in domestic jurisprudence and
drawing upon comparative constitutional law from other jurisdictions. This
Court does so not because the principles stated therein require revision, but
because, in the view of this Court, a more expansive articulation of the legal
foundations will serve clarity and assist in the systematic adjudication of the
categories of cases that now regularly come before this Court.
B. THE LAW OF LOCs
9. The Constitution of India guarantees to every person the right to life
and personal liberty under Article 21. As long settled since Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India2, the scope of personal liberty is not to be construed
narrowly; it encompasses the full range of rights that make life meaningful
and dignified.
10. The right to travel abroad has been conclusively recognized as an
integral component of personal liberty under Article 21. In Satwant Singh
Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer3, the Supreme
Court held that a passport, cannot be withheld arbitrarily or without
2
(1978) 1 SCC 248.
3 AIR 1967 SC 1836, Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:06:34 Page 7 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
authority of law, for to do so would be to deprive a person of a facet of
personal liberty.
11. In Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court held that the procedure
established by law that justifies deprivation of personal liberty must not be
arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable, and must comply with the requirements of
Articles 14, 19, and 21 read together. The guarantee of Article 21 cannot be
satisfied by any procedure, however oppressive or unjust.
12. The tripartite test, that a restriction on personal liberty must be (i)
founded on a law duly enacted by a competent legislature; (ii) procedurally
just, fair, and reasonable; and (iii) not violative of other fundamental rights,
applies with full force to any measure that impedes the right to travel
abroad.
13. The right to movement, including international movement, is also
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which protects the
right of citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India. While the
Supreme Court has held that this specific provision does not expressly
extend to travel beyond the territory of India, it has also recognised that the
right to travel abroad finds its protection in the broader guarantee of Article
21 read with the Preamble, which secures to every citizen liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith, and worship, and which implicitly protects the
freedom to engage with the world beyond national borders. This is not
merely a matter of individual convenience but goes to the heart of human
autonomy and dignity.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 8 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
14. The executive instructions that constitute the LOC regime, the Office
Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, are not a statute. They
are not legislative acts enacted by a competent legislature. As this Court held
in the Preceding Judgment, an LOC, though a recognised administrative
instrument, operates in a constitutionally sensitive field. The mere existence
of an administrative instruction authorising the issuance of an LOC does not,
by itself, satisfy the requirement of a “law” as contemplated by Article 21.
Executive action operating in the field of personal liberty must have a
statutory anchor; the Office Memoranda cannot serve as a substitute for
legislative mandate. This position, laid down in Maneka Gandhi and
applied consistently by this Court and the Bombay High Court in Viraj
Chetan Shah v. Union of India4, constitutes settled constitutional law.
15. The regulatory history of LOCs has been set out in extenso in the
Preceding Judgment. It suffices, for the present purposes, to record the
following essential chronology. The earliest framework, a letter issued by
the Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) dated 05.09.1979, was surveillance-
oriented and did not authorise prevention of departure. The Office
Memorandum of 27.12.2000 introduced structured guidelines but remained
limited in procedural content. A watershed development came in 2010 with
the judgments of this Court in Vikram Sharma v. Union of India5, and
Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director6, which set comprehensive guidelines
that the MHA incorporated into the Office Memorandum of 27.10.2010. The
Office Memorandum of 05.12.2017 introduced the category of “exceptional
4
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195.
5 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2475 6 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:06:34 Page 9 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
cases” permitting LOCs even in the absence of a cognizable offence, where
departure is considered detrimental to national interests, a category that has
since been subjected to extensive scrutiny in the courts.
16. The currently operative instrument is the comprehensive Office
Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 (“2021 OM”), which superseded all earlier
guidelines and remains the primary regulatory reference. The key
provisions, as relevant to the present petitions, are: (H) recourse to LOC is to
be taken in cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal laws, with
specific reasons invariably provided; (I) in non-cognizable matters,
detention, arrest, or prevention from leaving cannot be directed, only a
request for intimation of arrival/departure is permissible; and (L) in
exceptional cases, LOCs may be issued even where no cognizable offence is
involved, but only where the departure appears detrimental to the
sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, bilateral relations, strategic or
economic interests, or the larger public interest.
17. Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM, which empowered the Chairman,
Managing Directors, and Chief Executive Officers of all public sector banks
to seek the issuance of LOCs, has been struck down as constitutionally
infirm by the Bombay High Court in Viraj Chetan Shah and affirmed in the
Preceding Judgment. That position continues to hold the field, the challenge
before the Supreme Court not having been resolved in favour of the banks.
18. In Sumer Singh Salkan, this Court authoritatively held that an LOC
can be issued only in cases involving cognizable offences, where the
accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing before the trial court
despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures, and where there
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 10 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
is a real likelihood of the accused leaving the country. The Court further
held that the person against whom an LOC is issued must join the
investigation, surrender before the court, or satisfy the court that the LOC
was wrongly issued; and that an LOC may be rescinded by the originating
authority or by the trial court having jurisdiction. This foundational
framework has been consistently applied and elaborated in the subsequent
decade and a half.
19. The Madras High Court in Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of
Immigration7, held that an LOC is a coercive executive measure which
directly impinges upon personal liberty and cannot be issued mechanically.
Mere existence of a criminal case or investigation is insufficient; there must
be specific, credible material demonstrating a real and proximate threat of
absconding. This Court followed and elaborated that proposition in a series
of judgments. In Shalini Khanna v. Union of India8, this Court held that the
expression “detrimental to economic interests” must be of a magnitude that
can significantly affect the economic interests of the country, individual loan
defaults do not qualify.
20. In Apurve Goel v. Bureau of Immigration9, this Court held that
LOCs cannot be opened merely on the request of banks; there must be
independent application of mind by the competent authority. In Rajesh
Kumar Mehta v. Union of India10, and Bank of Baroda v. Sahil Chugh11,
this Court and the Division Bench reiterated that mere inability to repay a
7
2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229.
8 2024 SCC OnLine Del 837 9 2023:DHC:6886 10 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4153 11 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9282 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:06:34 Page 11 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
debt, without any criminal case, cannot deprive a citizen of the right to travel
under Article 21.
21. In Brij Bhushan Kathuria v. Union of India12, this Court held that
the phrases “economic interest” and “larger public interest” cannot be
expansively interpreted to ensnare persons who were past associates of a
company under investigation, without any specific role being attributed to
them in the wrongdoing. In Anastasiia Pivtsaeva &Anr. v. Union of India
&Ors.13, this Court held that mere familial relationship with an accused,
absent concrete material showing direct complicity, cannot justify the
continuation of an LOC. In Puja Chadha v. Directorate of
Enforcement14,and Sandeep Dhanuka v. Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence15, this Court undertook a comprehensive review of the entire
LOC regime and its limits, confirming that the LOC power must be
exercised sparingly and in strict conformity with the 2021 OM and the
judicial framework thereunder.
22. It is further material to note that in Anant Raj Kannoria v. Union of
India & Anr.16,this Court held that the mechanical continuation of an LOC,
in the absence of contemporaneous justification, and where the petitioner
has neither evaded the process of law nor shown any inclination to obstruct
the investigation, constitutes an unwarranted and prima facie arbitrary
restriction on personal liberty under Article 21. The obligation of periodic
review is thus not discretionary; it is constitutionally mandated.
12
2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587.
13
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5170
14
2025:DHC:8787.
15
2025 SCC OnLine Del 8280.
16 W.P.(C) 3313/2023 decided on 09.01.2026 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:06:34 Page 12 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV C. INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE ON THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
23. The right to travel is recognised as a fundamental human right in
international law. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948, proclaims that every person has the right to freedom of movement
within the borders of each state, and that every person has the right to leave
any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 12 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (“ICCPR”),
to which India is a party, provides that everyone lawfully within a territory
shall have the right to liberty of movement therein, and the right to leave any
country, including his own. Article 12(3) of the ICCPR permits restrictions
on this right only where they are provided by law, are necessary to protect
national security, public order, public health, morals, or the rights and
freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognised in the
ICCPR.
24. These international obligations, though not directly enforceable in
domestic courts without legislation, inform and enrich the content of the
rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, and this Court is duty-
bound to interpret constitutional provisions in a manner consistent with
India‟s international commitments. In National Legal Ser Auth v. Union of
India &Ors. the Supreme Court held that:-
“53.Article 51, as already indicated, has to be read along with Article
253 of the Constitution. If the parliament has made any legislation
which is in conflict with the international law, then Indian Courts are
bound to give effect to the Indian Law, rather than the international
law. However, in the absence of a contrary legislation, municipal
courts in India would respect the rules of international law. In HisSignature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 13 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadavalvaru v. State of
Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225, it was stated that in view of Article 51 of
the Constitution, the Court must interpret language of the
Constitution, if not intractable, in the light of United Nations Charter
and the solemn declaration subscribed to it by India. In Apparel
Export Promotion Council v. A.K Chopra Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759, it
was pointed out that domestic courts are under an obligation to give
due regard to the international conventions and norms for construing
the domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between
them and there is a void in domestic law. Reference may also be made
to the Judgments of this Court in Githa Hariharan (Ms) and another v.
Reserve Bank of India and another(1999) 2 SCC 228, R.D. Upadhyay
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2007) 15 SCC 337 and
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and another
(2005) 2 SCC 436. In Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and
Others (1997) 6 SCC 241, this Court under Article 141 laid down
various guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women in working
places, and to enable gender equality relying on Articles 11, 24 and
general recommendations 22, 23 and 24 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Any
international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental
rights and in harmony with its spirit must be read into those
provisions, e.g., Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution to
enlarge the meaning and content thereof and to promote the object
of constitutional guarantee. Principles discussed hereinbefore on TGs
and the International Conventions, including Yogyakarta principles,
which we have found not inconsistent with the various fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, must be recognized
and followed, which has sufficient legal and historical justification in
our country.
[Emphasis Supplied]
25. In the United States, the Supreme Court in Kent v. Dulles17, held that
the right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court, observed
that freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside
frontiers as well, is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be
17
357 U.S. 116 (1958).
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 14 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
deprived without due process of law. The Court noted that this right is
deeply embedded in our constitutional heritage, intimately related to
personal choice and dignified existence.
26. The Supreme Court of Canada, in Colet v. The Queen18, and
subsequently under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section
6, has recognised the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada as a
protected mobility right. The Charter imposes on the state the obligation to
justify any limitation on mobility rights under Section 1, which permits
limitations only by “a reasonable limit prescribed by law” that “can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The requirement
that a limitation be “prescribed by law”, meaning that it must be accessible,
precise, and foreseeable, closely mirrors the requirement in Indian
constitutional law that a restriction on personal liberty must be founded on a
law duly enacted by a competent legislature, as held in Maneka Gandhi.
27. The Privy Council, in Thomas v. Baptiste19, affirmed that the right to
liberty and personal freedom is a constitutional right of the highest order,
and that even in cases involving persons suspected of serious crime, the
State must act strictly in accordance with the procedures established by law,
respecting both the letter and the spirit of constitutional guarantees. The
Privy Council‟s consistent emphasis on the need for strict procedural
compliance, not merely nominal adherence to form but substantive
compliance with the rights of the individual, informs this Court‟s approach
18
[1981] 1 SCR 2.
19 [2000] 2 AC 1 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 18:06:34 Page 15 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
in insisting on an independent, reasoned, and speaking order before any
LOC is issued or continued.
28. Drawing from the domestic and comparative constitutional
jurisprudence discussed above, this Court confirms all the 9 propositions of
law laid down in the Preceding Judgment. Para 34-38 are extracted herein as
under:
“33. On a conspectus of constitutional provisions, the
regulatoryframework, and the entire body of judicial opinion surveyed
above,this Court distils the following governing legal principles for
theissuance, continuance, and judicial review of Look Out Circulars:
34. First, the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
theConstitution. Any restriction on this right must be founded on
law,must follow a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable, and
must notviolate any other fundamental right. Executive instructions
cannot be asubstitute for legislative mandate for the possible
restriction offundamental rights. Second, an LOC is a coercive
executive measureof last resort. It is not a routine tool for law
enforcement or debtrecovery. Recourse to an LOC may be taken only
in cases involving acognizable offence under the IPC or other penal
laws, where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not
appearing before the trial Court despite NBWs and other coercive
measures, and there is a real and proximate likelihood of absconding.
35. Third, public sector banks, through their Chairman, Managing
Directors, or Chief Executive Officers, do not possess legal authority
to seek the opening of an LOC. Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM
(equivalent to Clause 8(b)(xv) of the 2010 OM), which conferred such
power upon bank officials, stands quashed by decisions of both this
Court and the Bombay High Court.
36. Fourth, mere inability to repay a debt, without there being a
criminal case, cannot be a reason to deprive a citizen of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. The issuance of an
LOC cannot be resorted to in every case of bank loan default or credit
facility availed for business purposes. Where the person against whom
the LOC is opened has not been arrayed as an accused in any offence
for misappropriation or siphoning, the LOC cannot be sustained.
Fifth, the power under Clause 6(L) of the 2021 OM to issue an LOC in
cases detrimental to the “economic interests of India” is to be
narrowly construed and must be exercised only in rare and compelling
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 16 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
circumstances where the proposed departure poses a clear and grave
threat to the national or systemic economic interests of India, not in
cases of routine commercial default or individual business failure. The
quantum of the alleged default and the nature of the loss must be
assessed to determine whether it genuinely imperils the national
economic interest.
37. Sixth, the authority charged with opening an LOC must apply its
mind independently and cannot act as a mere instrument of the
originating agency. There must be a speaking order, based on specific
and credible inputs, justifying the necessity of the restraint. A
mechanical or pro forma compliance with the originating authority’s
request cannot satisfy this requirement. Seventh, an LOC cannot be
issued against a person merely on account of his status as a director,
guarantor, shareholder, or family member of a defaulting borrower, in
the absence of specific material demonstrating his direct and personal
role in the alleged wrongdoing. Guilt is personal and not vicarious in
civil or criminal liability.
38. Eighth, the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite. It must be
periodically reviewed and must be withdrawn when its purpose has
been served. Where the subject has cooperated with the investigation,
has not evaded process, and where no further interrogation or
presence is required, the continued operation of an LOC amounts to
an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty. Ninth,
while the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is duty-bound to
subject LOCs to strict judicial scrutiny, the Writ Court is not the
exclusive forum for challenge. A person against whom an LOC has
been issued may, in the first instance, approach the originating
authority for withdrawal, or approach the trial Court for its rescission
or modification. However, where these remedies are inadequate or
ineffectual, the writ jurisdiction is clearly available. Tenth, the burden
of justifying the necessity, proportionality, and legality of an LOC lies
squarely upon the originating agency. In the absence of such
justification, the LOC cannot be sustained. Courts must not accept
bald assertions of security concerns or economic interest without
requiring the originating agency to place credible material before the
Court.”
29. The weight of constitutional and comparative jurisprudence surveyed
above firmly places the burden of justifying an LOC upon the originating
agency. However, this Court is equally mindful that the LOC regime serves
a legitimate and important purpose: the prevention of flight from justice, the
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 17 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
protection of ongoing investigations, and the preservation of the sovereignty
and integrity of the State‟s law enforcement apparatus. The framework of
this Court, and the international standards with which it aligns, does not
deny the legitimacy of these interests; it demands that they be pursued
through means that are proportionate, documented, and subject to judicial
oversight.
D. ANALYSIS
I. LOCs ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS/BANKS
(i) W.P.(C) 18435/2025
30. The petitioner, M. Thiagarajan, an entrepreneur based in Madurai,
Tamil Nadu, and the Key Managerial Personnel of M/s Paramount Textile
Mills Pvt. Ltd. (“PTMPL”), a Government of India recognised Two Star
Export Trading House engaged in the export of textiles and related goods to
international markets seeks quashing of the LOC dated 20.11.2021, issued
against him at the instance of Respondent No. 2/Indian Bank.
31. The petitioner was formerly the Managing Director of Paramount
Airways Private Limited (“PAPL”), a private airline company currently
under liquidation, in which capacity he served until his formal resignation
on 05.09.2009. It is the petitioner‟s case that his executive authority within
PAPL was significantly curtailed even prior to his resignation, specifically
from 16.09.2007 onwards following a resolution passed in an Extraordinary
General Meeting of PAPL dated 15.09.2007, which restricted his role in the
financial and operational affairs of the company. Importantly, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 18 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
was not a personal guarantor for any of the credit facilities availed by PAPL
from Respondent No. 2, and had ceased to be a signatory on any company
financials from 15.09.2007, well before the alleged financial irregularities
and non-repayment of loans came to light.
32. Respondent No. 2 Bank, which is one of the complainants in the
ongoing criminal proceedings, alleges that public money in excess of Rs. 50
crores remains exposed on account of the financial irregularities of PAPL,
and seeks the continuance of the LOC on that basis.
33. The petitioner has been made a party to multiple proceedings arising
out of his erstwhile association with PAPL. FIR bearing RC No. 7(E)/2011
was registered against him under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC,
which culminated into CBI proceedings titled “CBI vs. Ramadoss Etc.”
bearing CC No. 73/2019, presently pending for arguments on charge before
the Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-03, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New
Delhi, in which the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated
22.01.2013 and has duly complied with all bail conditions.
34. A second CBI case titled “CBI vs. Paramount Airways Private
Limited” bearing Case No. 239/2019 (CNR No. DLCT12-000751-2019) is
pending before the Ld. Special Judge CBI-03, Rouse Avenue District
Courts, New Delhi, in which the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order
dated 01.09.2022, with charges yet to be framed.
35. In both CBI cases, Respondent No. 2 Bank has itself joined the
investigation and its officials have been listed as prosecution witnesses in
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 19 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
the respective chargesheets. In the Enforcement Directorate proceedings
under the PMLA bearing ECIR No. ECIR/CEZO/07/2016, the investigation
qua the petitioner stands completed and no custody of the petitioner has
been sought at any stage. SFIO proceedings bearing EOCC No. 1731/2016
are pending before the competent court, in which the petitioner has fully
cooperated.
36. During the pendency of the CBI proceedings, the Ld. Special Judge,
PC Act (CBI)-03, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, vide order
dated 01.04.2025, permitted the petitioner to travel to Kuala Lumpur from
04.04.2025 to 11.04.2025, and the petitioner duly complied with all
conditions imposed therein and returned to India within the stipulated
period, demonstrating his bonafides.
37. Having set out the facts of each of the aforementioned petitions, this
Court finds it apposite to note that all abovementioned petitions, though
arising from distinct factual matrices, share a common and identical legal
thread: in each case, the LOC has been issued solely at the instance of a
public sector bank, in the absence of any subsisting independent criminal
proceeding forming the foundation for such issuance, or in cases where the
petitioner is either not named as an accused, has been discharged by the
Trial Court, or is merely a guarantor or former director with no direct and
personal complicity established in the alleged fraud or misappropriation. It is
for this reason that all petitions are being considered and disposed of
together, as they raise identical questions of law and call for the application
of the same settled legal principles.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 20 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
38. The fundamental question before this Court in these petitions resolves
itself into a single compound inquiry, whether the concerned LOCs qualify
and meet the principles set out by this Court in para. 34-38 of this
judgement, including, inter alia, whether at the time of issuance of the LOC,
a live and validly registered cognizable offence under the IPC or any other
penal statute, and was the LOC issued by a competent authority acting upon
credible, specific, and independently verified material? Where the LOC is
found to fall ill with the principles enunciated above, the LOC must fall, and
this Court is constitutionally obligated to quash it. When the facts of each of
the aforenoted petitions before this Court are tested against this standard, it
is evident that none of them satisfy the requirement of law.
39. The LOC is accordingly quashed and set aside in, subject to the
following conditions:-
a. Petitioner shall be entitled to travel abroad without any prior
permission from this Court. The petitioner shall, however,
intimate the concerned Bank, with their full itinerary either
personally or through counsel, at least 48 hours prior to his/her
departure;
b. If, for any reason, it is not possible to furnish the said
intimation within 48 hours, the same shall be furnished
immediately when the travel plan is finalised; andc. If on account of a change in law, including a declaration by a
Court, affirming the competence/jurisdiction of financialSignature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 21 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
institutions to seek the issuance LOCs, the institutions shall be
at liberty to seek the issuance of LOCs in accordance with law.
40. The concerned Banks are directed to inform the Bureau of
Immigration regarding, inter alia, the quashing of the LOCs against the
respective petitioners, and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the
petitioners are not impeded from travelling abroad. The petitioner shall also
be at liberty to send such communication to the Immigration Department
independently.
II. LOCs ISSUED BY INVESTIGATING AGENCIES AND
MINISTERIES
(ii) W.P.(C) 3100/2022
41. The petitioner is an Indian citizen permanently residing in Delhi, and
is the Co-founder of Ceekr, an organization which enriches personal growth
of an individual by being a community and content-driven social network.
Respondent No. 4/Central Board of Direct Taxes conducted searches at the
office and residential premises of the petitioner and her husband on
03.02.2021 and 10.02.2021, during the course of which the statement of the
petitioner was duly recorded, thereby evidencing her full and voluntary
cooperation with the investigation from the very inception.
42. On 14.02.2022, the petitioner, while travelling to the United States of
America for the nasal surgery of her daughter which was scheduled on
18.02.2022, was detained by the airport authorities at IGI Airport and her
boarding pass was cancelled on account of LOC opened in her name.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 22 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
43. Since the filing of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has been
permitted to travel abroad on 10 occasions, and on each and every such
occasion, the petitioner has duly complied with all conditions imposed upon
her and has returned to India within the stipulated period without any default
or violation, thereby demonstrating in the most unequivocal manner that the
petitioner is not a flight risk and harbours no intention of evading the
process of law or absconding from the jurisdiction of this Court. The travel
permissions so granted are provided as under:-
S. Order Date Destination Purpose of Travel
No
1. 11.05.2023 USA Daughter of the petitioner
is graduating from The
New School University
2. 07.06.2023 European 50th Wedding Anniversary
Union (Spain, of close relatives
France
&Italy)
3. 11.09.2023 Italy N/A
4. 03.01.2024 Bangkok, Expansion of business
Thailand
5. 24.06.2024 USA Professional commitments
6. 14.11.2024 Muscat, Personal commitments
Oman
7. 03.02.2025 Bangkok, Personal commitments
Thailand
8. 19.03.2025 USA N/A
9. 16.12.2025 Phuket, N/A
Thailand
10. 25.03.2026 USA N/A
44. It is further pertinent to note that the application for citizenship of
Malta, which was applied for by the husband of the petitioner in the year
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 23 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
2016 for himself and his dependents including the petitioner herein, was
rejected in the year 2018 by the Individual Investor Program Agency, Malta,
on account of non-completion of the application within the stipulated two-
year time frame, and accordingly no pending application seeking citizenship
of Malta remains in the name of the petitioner.
(iii) W.P.(C) 1978/2025
45. The petitioner, is a Director of Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd.
(“WMCC”), a company engaged in the business of real estate development,
and has served in the said capacity until his resignation on 29.12.2023.
46. On 25.03.2021, WMCC was constrained to prefer Company Petition
(IB) No. 197/PB/2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal, New
Delhi (“NCLT”) under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 on account of certain disputes and illegal demands being raised by
NOIDA Authority in relation to the Project Wave Mega City Centre. Vide
Order dated 06.06.2022, the said Company Petition came to be dismissed by
the NCLT, New Delhi, and a direction was issued to the Central
Government to make necessary investigation into the affairs of the said
Company. WMCC‟s appeal against the said Order also came to be dismissed
by the NCLAT vide Judgment dated 05.01.2023, and the Order passed by
the NCLT was upheld.
47. On the basis of the Judgment dated 06.06.2022 passed by the NCLT
and upheld by the NCLAT vide Judgment dated 05.01.2023, Respondent
No. 2/Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) initiated investigation vide
Reference No.INV/210/RDNR/200/2023/I00086693 against WMCC, which
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 24 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
is presently ongoing. The impugned LOC was opened at the behest of
Respondent No. 2/MCA pursuant to the aforesaid investigation initiated
consequent upon the Order of the NCLAT dated 05.10.2023.
48. During the course of investigation being carried out by Respondent
No. 2, the petitioner has extended complete cooperation and has appeared
and provided requisite information to the Notices issued by Respondent No.
2 under Section 210(1)(c) and (2) r/w Section 217 of the Companies Act,
2013 on 26.07.2023, 30.10.2023, and 16.02.2024, appearing before the
Investigating Officer on 21.11.2023 and 28.02.2024 respectively, and
furnishing requisite information vide Letter dated 06.03.2024.
49. Across all of the aforesaid proceedings, no adverse observation has
been made qua the Petitioner‟s conduct or cooperation, no non-bailable
warrant has been issued against him, and no coercive measure of any nature
has been taken or sought against him at any stage.
50. During the pendency of the present proceedings, this Court has
permitted the petitioner to travel abroad on four separate occasions, and on
each and every such occasion, the petitioner has duly complied with all
conditions imposed by this Court and has returned to India within the
stipulated period without any default or violation whatsoever, thereby
demonstrating that the petitioner is not at flight risk. Travel permissions are
produced as under:-
S.No. Order Date Destination Purpose of Travel
1. 26.08.2025 Zurich, Family Vacation
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 25 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
Switzerland &
London
2. 24.11.2025 Maldives Family Vacation
3. 17.12.2025 France Family Vacation
&Netherlands
4. 23.01.2026 Kazakhstan Family Vacation
51. It is further pertinent to notice that this Court, in proceedings arising
out of identical facts and circumstances, has already set aside the LOC
issued against co-directors of the petitioner in Ritu Singal. It is submitted
that the petitioner herein stands on an equal footing as compared to the co-
directors in whose favour the aforesaid orders came to be passed, and no
distinguishing circumstance exists which would justify the continuance of
the impugned LOC against the Petitioner.
(iv) W.P.(C) 6745/2025
52. The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 seeking quashing of the Look Out Circular issued by Respondent No.
2/Income Tax Department against the petitioner.
53. The petitioner filed his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year
2021-2022 through the Income Tax Department‟s e-filing portal bearing
Acknowledgement Number 760639930291021, in which the petitioner
declared a total income of Rs. 11,03,530/-. On 09.03.2022, a search and
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 26 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was
carried out by Respondent No. 2 in the „Sterre Sharma Group‟ cases at
various business and residential premises associated with the said group, and
the residential premises of the petitioner were also covered under the said
operation.
54. It is submitted that as of date, no investigation by Respondent No. 2 is
pending against the petitioner, no cognizable offence has been registered
against him, no FIR has been lodged, no warrant has been issued, and no
proceedings of any nature are subsisting against the petitioner. The
petitioner has deep roots in India, is a permanent resident of Delhi, is a tax
payer, and continues to be professionally active.
55. On receipt of information regarding alleged non-disclosure of foreign
properties, a search and seizure action was conducted on 24.10.2024 and
concluded on 27.10.2024 at various premises of the petitioners in Safdarjung
Enclave, New Delhi and at Narmada River View Resort, Madhya Pradesh.
Certain incriminating material was found which prima facie revealed an
undisclosed foreign entities and assets, including an entity by the name of
Safai International operating in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, purportedly run by
petitioner no. 1.
56. There is no FIR registered against any of the petitioners nor is any
cognizable offence under investigation. On 14.04.2025, petitioner no. 1
submitted a written request to the Respondent seeking withdrawal of the
LOC for himself and his family members, assuring continued cooperation.
For the past six months, no further summons or notices have been issued to
the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 27 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
(v) W.P.(C) 16047/2025
57. The petitioner is a citizen of the People‟s Republic of China who was
engaged as a Director of Navitasys India Private Limited (“NIPL”), an
Indian company engaged in the business of manufacturing lithium-ion
batteries, through Board Resolution dated 18.03.2019, for the purpose of
providing technical expertise and know-how in order to develop the
manufacturing operations of NIPL in India. The petitioner is not a Key
Managerial Personnel of NIPL and his role was limited to providing
technical supervision regarding customer relations and quality control,
necessitating his regular business visits to India.
58. The petitioner travelled to India on 12.07.2025 for the discharge of his
official work. On 31.07.2025, NIPL was served with a Notice of
Investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (“SFIO”) under
Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013. Notwithstanding the fact that the
petitioner was not a Key Managerial Personnel of NIPL, the petitioner
extended his complete cooperation to the SFIO and appeared before it on
09.10.2025 and 31.10.2025, responding to every query to the best of his
knowledge and providing all clarifications sought by the SFIO regarding
NIPL‟s operations, management, and decision-making structure.
59. During the pendency of the present proceedings, this Court permitted
the petitioner to travel to China vide order dated 01.12.2025 on one occasion
from 12.12.2025 to 28.01.2026 and the Petitioner duly complied with all
conditions imposed by this Court and returned to India within the stipulated
period without any default or violation whatsoever, thereby demonstrating
that the petitioner is not a flight risk.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 28 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
60. Ld. counsel for Respondent No. 3/SFIO, upon instructions, submitted
before this Court that the investigation by the SFIO has been completed and
that as of now, no fraud element has appeared against the petitioner.
(vi) W.P.(C) 3492/2026
61. The petitioner seeks quashing of the LOC issued at the instance of
Respondent No. 1/Department of Revenue and Respondent No. 2/SFIO.
Investigation under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 had
commenced in the year 2019 against the petitioner in connection with the
affairs of Punj Lloyd Limited. The petitioner was last summoned to join the
investigation on 23.09.2024.
62. It is most pertinent to note that SFIO, in its counter affidavit filed in
W.P.(C) 14557/2025, has itself taken a categorical position that the
investigation stood completed. As of date, no complaint, prosecution report,
or charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner before any court of
competent jurisdiction.
63. Parallelly, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the
Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of
Tax Act, 2015 (“Black Money Act”), and an Assessment Order came to be
passed on 30.03.2024, Aggrieved by the said Assessment Order, the
Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), who further reduced the assessed undisclosed foreign
assets/income to Rs. 7,34,676/- vide order dated 14.07.2025. The petitioner,
being aggrieved even by the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 29 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
(Appeals), has preferred a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal (“ITAT”), which is presently pending adjudication.
64. It is further pertinent to bring to take note that the Petitioner has, on
five separate occasions, been permitted by this Court in W.P.(C) 9372/2024
to travel abroad, and on each and every such occasion, and the petitioner
duly complied with all conditions imposed and returned to India within the
stipulated period without any default or violation whatsoever. The details of
the said orders, are as under:
S.No. Order Date Destination Purpose of Travel
1. 07.01.2025 United Kingdom
2. 16.05.2025 UAE, Bahrain, Business Meetings
UK & Italy
3. 21.08.2025 Portugal, Spain Medical Treatment
& UAE
4. 09.01.2025 UAE & Sri Lanka
5. 12.01.2026 Thailand & Business
Singapore
65. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, this Court
finds that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within Category B of the
judgment passed in the case of Ritu Singal v. Bureau of Immigration &
Ors., wherein this Court categorised writ petitions in Para 3 as:-
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 30 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
“3. These writ petitions have been categorised into three broad classes
for the purposes of discussion, analysis, and disposal, namely:
Category A — cases where the Look Out Circular has been issued
solely at the instance of financial institutions; Category B — cases
where the Look Out Circular has been issued at the instance of
ministries and investigating agencies; and Category C — cases where
petitioner is relegated to the forum that issued LOC. Each category
raises distinct, though interrelated, legal issues which shall be
addressed in the appropriate sequence in this judgment.
93. The present petitions have been filed by five petitioners, all
members of the same family, seeking quashing of the LOCs issued
against them at the instance of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office
(“SFIO”). The petitioners were appointed to different positions in
Assotech Limited, a company engaged in real estate development
having executed multiple projects across Delhi and the National
Capital Region.”
66. The continuation of the impugned LOCs in the aforenoted cases is not
sustainable, they are accordingly set aside, subject to the following
conditions:
a. The petitioners shall be entitled to travel abroad without any
prior permission of this Court. The petitioners shall, however,
intimate and provide the full itinerary to the concerned
department/agency, either personally or through counsel, at
least 48 hours prior to their departure; andb. If, on account of a change in law, or any other supervening
event, including a declaration by a Court, the institutions shall
be at liberty to seek the issuance of LOCs in accordance with
law.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 31 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
67. The concerned Investigating agencies/Ministries are directed to
inform the Bureau of Immigration regarding, inter alia, the quashing of the
LOCs against the respective petitioners, and to take all necessary steps to
ensure that the petitioners are not impeded from travelling abroad. The
petitioner shall also be at liberty to send such communication to the
Immigration Department independently.
68. With the aforesaid directions, the aforesaid petitions stand disposed of
accordingly.
69. While the aforesaid common conditions shall apply to all
abovementioned petitions, it is further directed that in certain petitions, the
following additional conditions shall apply over and above the common
conditions set out hereinabove.
W.P.(C) 6745/2025
70. The petitioner shall disclose all his assets, to the IT Authority, held
by him or the company entities controlled by him directly or indirectly in
any foreign country whether it is movable or immovable within 15 days
from the date of receipt of this order.
III. APPROPRIATINESS OF RELEGATING THE PETITIONER TO
THE FORUM THAT ISSUED THE LOC
71. Having disposed of the category of matters wherein the LOC
warranted outright quashing, it is necessary to advert to a separate and
doctrinally distinct category of cases presently before this Court, wherein the
factual matrix does not justify immediate annulment of the LOC, and
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 32 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
wherein the relief sought by the petitioners is more appropriately and
efficaciously available by way of recourse to the forum that originally
passed the order directing issuance of the Letters of Caution, or to the Court
seized of the underlying criminal proceedings.
72. These constitute those categories of cases wherein the writ court,
upon final disposal of the writ petition, has refrained from interfering with
the LOC while contemporaneously issuing a direction to the petitioner to
seek appropriate relief before the competent authority or forum that
originally issued the order for issuance of the LOC. This mode of
adjudicatory disposal warrants distinct and considered analytical treatment,
inasmuch as it reflects a nuanced judicial acknowledgment of the
constitutional equilibrium between the writ Court‟s plenary and supervisory
jurisdiction on the one hand, and the institutional primacy and precedential
competence of the originating forum as the court or authority of first
instance on the other. The locus classicus governing this category of cases is
the decision in Sumer Singh Salkan, which enunciated comprehensive and
binding guidelines constituting the normative framework for the Letters of
Caution regime. It specifically held as under:
“11A… Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in
cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the
accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the
trial court 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 & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer
alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in
this respect.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 33 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation
by appearing I.O or should surrender 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.”
73. The disposal of a writ petition with a direction to approach the forum
issuing LOC or undertaking an investigation, is not a rejection of the
petitioner‟s grievance on merits but a recognition of the institutional design
of the LOC regime, which contemplates a layered grievance-redressal
mechanism. The petition dealt with hereinbelow fall squarely within this
category.
(vii). W.P.(C) 7051/2024
74. The petitioner, a law-abiding citizen of India and a permanent resident
of Kolkata, West Bengal, is an actor by profession having featured in
various Hindi and Regional Cinema and Web-Series, and was a non-
executive director in certain companies engaged in the business of
construction, entertainment industry and allied activities. The petitioner
seeks quashing of the Look Out Circular and/or revocation of the
ban/restriction imposed on his travel abroad by the Respondents, at the
instance of Respondent No. 2/Ministry of Corporate Affairs, without any
basis, notice, or communication having ever been served upon him.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 34 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
75. On 19.10.2023, the petitioner was stopped at the Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata, when he was travelling to
Singapore along with his wife and daughter. The petitioner was informed by
the Immigration Officer that a ban/restriction had been imposed on his travel
abroad by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and that he should get in touch
with Respondent No. 2 for further details. The petitioner was not furnished
with a copy of any notice/circular imposing such ban, nor were any reasons
or particulars in relation thereto communicated to him, and till date no such
copy has been received by the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge
whatsoever of any travel ban or any proceedings pending against him until
the said incident occurred at the Kolkata International Airport.
76. Thereafter, the petitioner undertook multiple bona fide steps to
ascertain the reasons for the said travel ban. The petitioner sent an email to
Respondent No. 2 on 20.10.2023 seeking information and guidance,
submitted a detailed representation dated 23.12.2023 to Respondent No. 2
requesting disclosure of the details and relevant documents/notice in relation
to the ban, filed an online RTI application dated 23.12.2023 before the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs which was disposed of on 22.01.2024 with the
reply that no such data was available with the public authority, sent a further
email dated 17.02.2024 to Respondent No. 2 requesting intervention and
response, and caused a detailed representation dated 11.03.2024 to be served
upon Respondent No. 1 by email and speed post, which was received on
14.03.2024. Despite the aforesaid representations and reminders, no
response of any nature has been received from either Respondent till date,
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 35 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
leaving the petitioner entirely in the dark as to the reasons and details of the
travel restriction imposed upon him.
77. In view of the foregoing, the present petitions are disposed of with the
following directions:
a. The writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the respective
petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction
before which the chargesheet/complaint is pending, seeking
modification or cancellation of the LOC, as the case may be;
b. The concerned Courts shall consider such applications
expeditiously and in accordance with law; andc. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the LOC or the underlying criminal
proceedings, and the disposal of these petitions shall not
prejudice the rights of any party before the trial court.
D. CONCLUSION
78. In view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons recorded
hereinabove, all the writ petitions listed herein, being, W.P.(C) 18435/2025,
W.P.(C)3100/2022, W.P.(C) 1978/2025, W.P.(C) 6745/2025, W.P.(C)
16047/2025, and W.P.(C) 3492/2026, stand disposed of along with all the
pending applications in the above terms. The Impugned LOCs issued against
the respective petitioners in each of the aforementioned writ petitions are,
hereby, set aside and quashed.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 36 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
79. So far as W.P(C) 7051/2024 is concerned, the petitioners in the said
writ petitions are relegated to the appropriate forum to seek relief in
accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the claims of the said petitioners, and it shall be
open to them to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law. The
said writ petitions, along with all pending applications, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 15, 2026
NK/SH/P/aks
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:22.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:06:34 Page 37 of 37 KUMAR KAURAV
