Delhi High Court: In common batch of 33 writ petitions, challenging the legality of Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued to restrict individuals from travelling abroad, including in cases involving bank dues and ongoing criminal proceedings, the Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. held that “LOC is a coercive executive measure of last resort. It is not a routine tool for law enforcement or debt recovery”. The Court emphasised that restrictions on foreign travel must be justified by a lawful basis and credible material and cannot be maintained mechanically or indefinitely. The mere existence of a loan default, tax proceeding or investigation does not dispense with the requirement of demonstrating the necessity and proportionality of the restriction. The Court also emphasised that an LOC must be periodically reviewed and withdrawn when its purpose has been served.
The Court further held that the High Court is not the exclusive forum for challenging an LOC and where the underlying criminal proceedings are pending before a competent court, that court ordinarily remains the appropriate forum to assess whether the restriction should continue.
The Court for the purpose of adjudication, classified the matters into 3 categories:
-
cases in which LOCs had been issued solely at the instance of financial institutions,
-
cases in which LOCs had been issued at the instance of ministries and investigating agencies, and
-
cases in which the petitioners were required to approach the authority or court that had originally issued or was competent to modify or cancel the LOC.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned LOCs in the bank-originated cases and the specified cases involving investigating agencies and ministries, subject to common conditions and certain case-specific directions. In the matters relegated to the competent courts, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the LOCs and instead preserved the petitioners’ liberty to seek appropriate relief before the courts dealing with their pending criminal proceedings.
Background
The instant writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of LOCs issued at the instance of public sector banks, financial institutions, investigating agencies and government departments. The petitions raised common constitutional and legal issues despite arising from different factual situations.
The oldest petition (Ritu Singal v. Bureau of Immigration, W.P.(C) 17646/2022), had been instituted on 15 December 2022 and was being decided after approximately 3 and a half years. In this petition alone, 23 interim orders had been passed, including 3 orders permitting foreign travel. Across the batch, approximately 612 orders had been passed, of which around 110 permitted the petitioners to travel abroad. None of the petitioners had absconded or fled the country, and there was neither any allegation of an attempt to do so nor material on record establishing such an attempt.
Issue for Consideration
Whether the issuance and continuation of LOCs, a coercive executive measure directly imperiling the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, are legally sustainable in the circumstances evinced in each of these petitions?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court, for the purpose of adjudication, classified the matters into 3 categories:
1. cases in which LOCs had been issued solely at the instance of financial institutions,
2. cases in which LOCs had been issued at the instance of ministries and investigating agencies, and
3. cases in which the petitioners were required to approach the authority or court that had originally issued or was competent to modify or cancel the LOC.
Right to travel abroad under Article 21
The Court recognised that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The right to travel both within the country and abroad, has been recognised as an integral and constitutionally protected facet of this fundamental guarantee.”
The Court referred to Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 21, wherein the Supreme Court recognised the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty and held that a passport could not be withheld arbitrarily or without authority of law.
The Court relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, to explain that any procedure depriving a person of personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable. The Supreme Court had held that Article 21 cannot be satisfied by a procedure that is oppressive, arbitrary or unjust. Any restriction on foreign travel must therefore conform to the requirements of natural justice, due process and fairness.
The Court also referred to Kent v. Dulles, 1958 SCC OnLine US SC 113, wherein the United States Supreme Court recognised freedom of movement across national frontiers as an important incident of individual liberty, closely connected with personal choice and human dignity.
Thus, the Court held that the right to travel abroad is not merely a statutory entitlement. It is a constitutionally protected right, and any restriction must satisfy the three requirements identified in Maneka Gandhi:
“(i) it must be founded on a law duly enacted by the competent legislature;
(ii) the procedure prescribed by such law must be just, fair, and reasonable; and
(iii) the law and the procedure must not violate any of the other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.” Executive instructions, by themselves, cannot replace a legislative mandate when fundamental rights are curtailed.
Evolution of the LOC regime
The Court explained that LOCs are not creatures of statute but originated in executive instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). These instructions authorised agencies to monitor the arrival and departure of Indian citizens and foreign nationals at immigration checkpoints. The framework was primarily surveillance-oriented and did not specifically regulate the circumstances in which a person could be prevented from leaving India. It noted that the earliest instruction was the MHA letter dated 5 September 1979.
A more structured framework was introduced through the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 27 December 2000, which prescribed guidelines for issuing LOCs concerning Indian citizens, although it did not adequately address all procedural safeguards necessary to protect the right to travel.
The Court referred to Sumer Singh Salkan v. Director, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699, wherein the Court had laid down foundational principles governing the issuance and cancellation of LOCs. It explained that an LOC could be issued in a case involving a cognizable offence under the Penal Code, 1860, or another penal law, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or failing to appear before the trial court despite non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and other coercive measures, and there was a likelihood of the accused leaving India to evade arrest or trial. The Court had also held that
-
an LOC may be issued in cognizable offences where the accused is deliberately evading arrest;
-
the investigating officer must make a written request to the competent officer, setting out the reasons for seeking an LOC and only the competent officer can direct opening of an LOC by a speaking order;
-
the person concerned may join the investigation, surrender before the court, establish that the LOC was wrongly issued, or approach the originating authority for withdrawal; and
-
the jurisdiction of the competent subordinate court to affirm or cancel an LOC corresponds to its jurisdiction concerning non-bailable warrants.
Following this decision, the MHA issued the OM dated 27 October 2010, which confined the ordinary use of LOCs to cases involving cognizable offences under the IPC or other penal statutes. In non-cognizable matters, the agency could seek information regarding a person’s arrival or departure, but the individual could not be detained or prevented from leaving India. The 2010 memorandum also included the chairpersons, managing directors and chief executive officers of public sector banks among the authorities entitled to request the opening of an LOC.
The Court noted that this regime was further modified by the OM dated 5 December 2017 and subsequent memoranda dated 19 September 2018 and 12 October 2018. The 2017 memorandum introduced an exceptional category under which an LOC could be issued even in cases not involving cognizable offences, where departure was considered detrimental to India’s sovereignty, security or integrity, bilateral relations, strategic or economic interests, or the larger public interest. The Court stressed that this was intended as a narrow, residual power for truly exceptional circumstances, not a general authority to be invoked routinely.
In order to consolidate and streamline the LOC regime, the MHA issued a comprehensive OM dated 22 February 2021 (2021 OM), which, in supersession of all earlier guidelines, presently governs the law with respect to the issuance of LOCs.
LOCs — Judicial Framework
The Court referred to Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229, wherein the Madras High Court held that an LOC was a coercive executive measure directly affecting personal liberty and could not be issued mechanically or routinely. The mere existence of a criminal case or investigation was insufficient; tangible, specific and credible material had to establish a real and proximate likelihood of absconding.
In Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1195, the Bombay High Court had held that the right to travel abroad formed part of Article 21 and could not be curtailed through executive instructions alone in the absence of an appropriate statutory framework. It was held that although the OM were not invalid in their entirety, but the inclusion of public sector bank officials under Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM was bad in law for being arbitrary and unreasonable.
In Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4153, the Court had quashed an LOC issued against a person who stood as guarantor for a company unable to repay its debts. There were no criminal proceedings or allegations of fraud or siphoning of funds against him. The Court rejected the use of an LOC as an “arm-twisting tactic” to recover debt.
In Apurve Goel v. Bureau of Immigration, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5917, it was held that the authority opening an LOC must independently apply its mind and should not merely act upon a bank’s request. The competent authority must satisfy itself, based on the material available, that the proposed departure attracts the grounds recognised by the governing guidelines.
After examining the constitutional provisions, regulatory framework and judicial precedents, the Court summarised the following governing principles for LOCs:
-
The right to travel abroad is protected by Article 21. Any restriction must have a valid legal foundation, follow a just, fair and reasonable procedure, and comply with the other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Executive instructions cannot substitute for legislative authority when fundamental rights are curtailed.
-
An LOC is a coercive measure of last resort. It is not a routine instrument of law enforcement or debt recovery. Under the ordinary LOC framework, it may be resorted to in cases involving cognizable offences where the accused deliberately evades arrest or fails to appear before the trial court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures, and there is a real and proximate likelihood of absconding.
-
Public sector banks lack authority to seek LOCs through the impugned provision, i.e., Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM.
-
Inability to repay a debt is not, by itself, a ground to restrict personal liberty. An LOC cannot be issued in every case of loan default or credit facilities obtained for business purposes.
-
The expression “economic interests of India” must be narrowly construed. Clause 6(L) of the 2021 OM can be invoked only in rare and compelling circumstances where the proposed departure poses a clear and grave threat to India’s national or systemic economic interests.
-
The authority opening an LOC must apply its mind independently. A speaking order based on specific and credible material must justify the necessity of the restriction. Mechanical or pro forma acceptance of the originating agency’s request is insufficient.
-
Liability cannot be imposed vicariously merely because of a person’s position. An LOC cannot be issued solely because a person is a director, guarantor, shareholder or family member of a defaulting borrower. Specific material must establish that person’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing.
-
LOCs cannot continue indefinitely. Their operation must be periodically reviewed, and they must be withdrawn once their purpose has been served.
-
The High Court is not the exclusive forum for challenging an LOC. The person concerned may approach the originating authority for withdrawal or the competent trial court for rescission or modification.
-
The burden of justification rests on the originating agency. It must establish the necessity, proportionality and legality of the restriction. Bald assertions concerning security or economic interests cannot suffice in the absence of credible supporting material.
Application to Present Case
I. LOCs issued at the instance of financial institutions and banks
After examining the individual matters, the Court observed that the petitions shared a common legal thread, i.e., the LOCs had been issued solely at the instance of public sector banks without a subsisting independent criminal proceeding providing an adequate foundation, or against individuals who were not accused, had been discharged, or were merely guarantors or former directors without established direct and personal complicity in the alleged fraud or misappropriation.
The Court held that the decisive inquiry was whether a live and validly registered cognizable offence existed at the time of issuance and whether the LOC had been issued by a competent authority on credible, specific and independently verified material. The Court found that the bank-originated LOCs under consideration failed to satisfy these requirements. Their mechanical continuation without periodic review further undermined their legality.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the LOCs in this category, subject to common conditions and certain case-specific directions.
II. LOCs issued by investigating agencies and ministries
The Court noted that this category concerned with the LOCs issued by the Income Tax Department, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Unlike the first category, these cases required the Court to assess the continuing necessity of restrictions in the context of ongoing investigations, completed investigations, pending complaints, tax proceedings and the petitioners’ conduct.
The Court did not treat every investigation as an automatic justification for an LOC. It examined whether the relevant authority had established a legally sustainable basis for the restriction and whether the purpose of the LOC continued to exist.
The Court’s assessment of this category demonstrated that the mere existence of an investigation, tax proceeding or regulatory inquiry did not automatically validate an LOC. The relevant considerations included whether a cognizable offence existed, whether the person was specifically implicated, whether the investigation required the person’s continued availability, whether the person had cooperated, and whether the risk of absconding was supported by credible material.
The Court also considered whether the purpose of the LOC had already been fulfilled, whether the agency had taken measures such as attachment of assets, and whether the restriction had been periodically reviewed.
Where the LOC was not supported by a legally sufficient basis or its continuation had become unnecessary, the Court set it aside, subject to common and case-specific safeguards.
III. petitioners approach the authority/court to modify/cancel LOC
In this category, the Court considered the cases in which the facts did not warrant immediate quashing of the LOC, but the petitioners’ grievances were more appropriately addressed by the authority that issued the LOC or the court before which the criminal proceedings were pending.
The Court explained that disposing of a writ petition with liberty to approach the originating authority or the competent trial court does not amount to rejection of the petitioner’s grievance on merits. Rather, it recognises the institutional arrangement governing LOCs, under which the originating authority and the court dealing with the underlying criminal proceedings have an important role in determining whether the restriction should be modified or cancelled.
The Court relied on Sumer Singh Salkan, which provides that a person against whom an LOC has been issued may join the investigation, surrender before the court concerned, or satisfy the court that the LOC was wrongly issued. The person may also approach the officer who ordered the LOC for its withdrawal. The LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority or rescinded by the competent court on an appropriate application.
The Court noted that in W.P.(C) 17646/2022 and W.P.(C) 17647/2022, Neeraj Singal was the former promoter, vice-chairman and managing director of Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL), which was subsequently acquired by Tata Steel. Neeraj Singal ceased to be associated with the company thereafter and his wife, Ritu Singal, had been a homemaker and had no involvement in the day-to-day affairs of BSL. In W.P.(C) 1755/2023, the petitioner was the founder and former promoter of M/s Su-Kam Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., which had obtained credit facilities from a consortium of lenders. The company’s accounts were declared fraudulent by the respondent banks, following which a complaint was lodged with the CBI. In W.P.(C) 18812/2025, the petitioner was a tours and travel consultant operating a proprietorship concern under the name Dharamvir Consultancy, registered as a micro business entity under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The CBI was investigating the case and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and was pending consideration before the competent court.
The Court noted that the four matters considered under this category were distinguishable from those in which the LOCs were quashed outright. In each case, a charge-sheet or complaint had been filed before a competent court, and the underlying proceedings were pending adjudication.
The Court opined that the trial court was best placed to examine the necessity and proportionality of the LOC with the benefit of the complete investigative record. This was particularly relevant where the court had already prescribed conditions governing foreign travel, as in Neeraj Singal’s case.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of these petitions with liberty to the respective petitioners to approach the competent courts before which the charge-sheets or complaints were pending. Those courts were directed to consider applications for modification or cancellation expeditiously and in accordance with law. The High Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the LOCs or the underlying criminal proceedings, and that the disposal would not prejudice the rights of any party before the trial court.
Also Read: Issuance of Look Out Circular under NDPS Act: Violation of Right to Movement
Directions and conditions
I. Quashing of LOCs in the bank-originated cases
The the Court quashed and set aside the LOCs in the relevant bank-originated cases, subject to common conditions and additional directions for particular petitioners.
The common conditions required:
-
Each petitioner to intimate the concerned bank of the proposed foreign travel, together with the complete itinerary, personally or through counsel, at least 48 hours before departure.
-
If providing the information within that period was not possible, the petitioner was required to furnish it immediately once the travel plan was finalised.
-
If the law changed, including through a judicial declaration affirming the competence or jurisdiction of financial institutions to seek LOCs, the institutions concerned would remain at liberty to seek LOCs in accordance with law.
-
The banks were directed to inform the Bureau of Immigration about the quashing of the LOCs and take all necessary steps to ensure that the petitioners were not impeded from travelling abroad. The petitioners were also permitted to communicate the decision independently to the Immigration Department.
In W.P.(C) 1304/2025 (Sidhant Gupta), the Court made it clear that the petitioner could not travel abroad without prior permission from the competent courts where the charge-sheets had been filed and the criminal proceedings were pending, unless the LOCs issued at the instance of the CBI and ED were set aside or the Court concerned otherwise permitted travel.
In W.P.(C) 7503/2024 (Senthil Nachiappan), the Court preserved the decree-holder’s liberty to seek directions from the executing court for deposit or seizure of the petitioner’s passport. It also substituted the common 48-hour intimation requirement with a 7-day advance intimation requirement for travel to Hong Kong and directed the petitioner to intimate the bank concerned in advance when returning to Hong Kong from India.
III. Quashing of LOCs issued by investigating agencies and ministries
The Court set aside the relevant LOCs in the cases involving investigating agencies and ministries, subject to common and case-specific safeguards.
The common conditions required:
-
The petitioners to provide their complete itinerary to the concerned department or agency at least 48 hours before departure.
-
The authorities were provided liberty to seek the issuance of fresh LOCs in accordance with law in the event of a change in law or another supervening circumstance.
-
The concerned investigating agencies and ministries were directed to notify the Bureau of Immigration of the quashing of the LOCs and ensure that the petitioners were not prevented from travelling abroad.
In W.P.(C) 10895/2023 (Ashok Mittal) and W.P.(C) 8859/2025 (Balram Saini and connected petitioners), the Court imposed additional conditions. They were required to disclose, on affidavit, all movable and immovable assets in India, including assets held jointly with family members. They were required to furnish their full travel itinerary 7-days before travel or, if that was not possible, at least 48 hours beforehand. They could not create third-party rights without prior intimation to the investigating agency. They were also required to disclose all foreign assets, whether held personally or through entities under their direct or indirect control, and disclose foreign bank accounts with statements covering the period from their opening until the date of disclosure.
For the petitioners in the Assotech Limited matters, W.P.(C) 9610/2023, W.P.(C) 3904/2025, W.P.(C) 11461/2025 and W.P.(C) 11972/2025, the Court directed that at least one petitioner must remain in India at all times and that all petitioners could not travel abroad simultaneously.
In W.P.(C) 19065/2025 (Gaurav Munjal), the Court directed the filing of statements for all foreign bank accounts from the date of opening before the concerned MCA officials. The petitioner was prohibited from operating those foreign bank accounts while travelling abroad. He was also required to file a detailed affidavit disclosing his travel itinerary, including stay locations, telephone numbers and residential or hotel addresses abroad, together with an undertaking to adhere strictly to the itinerary. The petitioner was required to ensure that at least one contact number remained operational throughout the foreign stay, except while travelling on an aircraft. Upon returning to India, he was directed to file a self-attested copy of his passport and copies of the relevant visas.
III. Disposal of the petitions relegated to the competent courts
In these 4 cases, the Court disposed of the petitions by granting the petitioners liberty to approach the competent courts before which the charge-sheets or complaints were pending. The concerned courts were directed to consider applications for modification or cancellation of the LOCs expeditiously and in accordance with law.
[Ritu Singal v. Bureau of Immigration, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4825, decided on 17-4-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner(s): Manu Sharma, Siddharth Luthra, Siddharth Aggarwal, Sanjay Dewan, Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advs., Ms. Prachi Darji, Abhyuday Sharma, Ms. Seema Sharma, Utkarsh Kumar, Anshay Shandilya, Mohit Chaudhary, Kunal Sachdeva, Ms. Katyayani Vajpayee, Lakshay Yadav, Anand Mishra, Sachin Midha, Aditya Vikram Bajpai, Vijay Aggarwal, Pankush Goyal, Vishal Gourav, Yash Agrawal, Siddharth Bhardwaj, Ms. Barkha Rastogi, Geetansh Bharti, Pavitra Dixit, Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, Sumeer Sodhi, Arjun Nanda, Hardeek Goyal, Gautam Khazanchi, Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Ayush Sachan, Ms. Pooja Deepak, Khush, Sougat Pati, Ms. Rushika Patil, Ms. Ria Yadav, Nav Teji, Ms. Vismita Diwan, Anish Dewan, Nikhil Goel, Gurpreet Singh, Manit Walia, Ms. Jaispriya Poly, Ashish Chauhan, Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Deepank Yadav, Bharat Chugh, Maj. Nirvikar Singh (Retd.), Maanish Choudhary, Jai Allagh, Vikrant Suri, Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Sohum Dua, Ghunaim Siddiqui, Ms. Manvi, Ms. Saloni Ray, Prateek Gupta, Pulkit Agarwal, Ms. Vishakha Kaushik, Rajkamal Singh, Praveen Chaturvedi, Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi, Tarun Kumar, Shubhendu Bhattacharyya, Shubhit Shokeen, Vartul Vishnoi, Nimish Chib, Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Ms. Neha Nagpal, Malak Bhatt, Vishvendra Tomar, Ms. Nishtha Juneja, Sulakshan V.S, Himanshu Kasturi, Ms. Shivani Sharma and Ms. Vidisha Bajaj, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Nishant Gautam, Ishkaran Singh Bhandari, Amit Tiwari, Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Premtosh K. Mishra, Ms. Nidhi Ramam, Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSCs, Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Kritarth Upadhyay, Vivek Sharma, Amulya Dev Mishra, Sunil, Anupam S. Sharrma, Abhiyant Singh, Vashisht Rao, Ms. Amisha P. Dash, Ms. Asiya Khan, Nishchay Nigam, Ms. Niharika Tanwar, Ms. Riya Sood, Aryan Rakesh, Rachit Bigghe, V.K Gupta, Brijesh k. Tamber, Ms. Chanchala Kumari, Mohit Gupta, Ms. Kavya Shukla, Vineet Negi, Vibhav V. Nath, Ms. Theresa, Piyush Yadav, Samarendra Kumar, Vishnu Jaysaval, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adarsh Raj Singh, Sumit Chanchal, Madhurendra Kumar, Ms. Juhi Rani, Ms. Saumya, Nitin, Ms. Nisha, O.P Gaggar, Sachindra Karn, Ms. Purnima Jain, Madhur, Kushagra Kansal, Amit Kumar Rana, Santosh Kumar Rout, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Ayush Tanwar, Arpan Narwal, Kushagra Malik, Ujjwal Tyagi, Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Rishab Jain, Arun Aggarwal, Lovelesh Kukreja, Sanjay Bajaj, Rajat Prakash, Udit Dad, Ms. Khyaati, Ms. Maanya Saxena, Neeraj Kumar, Akshit Mohan, Shashwat, Shrey Sharma, Anubhav Upadhyay, Arpit Bamal, Arnav Mittal, Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Amrisha Kumari, Abhinav Vijayaran, Kautilya Birat, Akshamishra, Shashank Dixit, Kunal Raj, Kushagra Kumar, Aakarsh Mishra, Ms. Vaishnavi Bhargava, Akshat Khanna, Karsh Sarosh Rebalo, Piyush Beriwal, Sanjay Lamba, Gaoraang Ranjan, Ms. Harshita Kotru, Dr. Ravinder Kumar Anand, Advs., Rakesh Kumar, Himanshu Pathak, Chetanya Puri, Ms. Arushi Singh, SPCs, Kush Sharma, Standing Counsel, Akshit Kapur, AOR, Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel counsel, Siddhartha Sinha, SSC, Ms. Easha Gurung, JSC, Shlok Chandra, Siddhartha Sinha, Vipul Agrawal, Sr. Standing Counsels, Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, Jr. Standing Counsels, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, GP, Arkaj Kumar, Santosh Kumar Rout, SCs, Rajesh Kumar and Atul Guleria, SPPs
