Liberty Outlasts Limbo: Delhi High Court Quashes Four-Year-Old LOC

In a significant verdict upholding the fundamental right to personal liberty, the High Court of Delhi has ordered the quashing of Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against petitioners Thilakasri Krepanand and Shantunu Muluk. The ruling, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula, serves as a sharp critique of the state's practice of perpetuating travel restrictions during indefinitely pending investigations.

A Long Road for the Petitioners

The case originated from FIR No. 49/2021, registered at the Special Cell of the Delhi Police following the farmers’ agitation of January 2021. The FIR involved serious charges under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 124A (Sedition), 153A, 153, and 120B.

While the FIR was filed in February 2021, the wheels of justice—or at least the investigation—had ground to a standstill. Even four years later, no chargesheet has been filed. The petitioners argued that such a prolonged, inactive investigation, coupled with an active LOC, effectively shackled their fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution without any valid legal basis.

The Tug-of-War: Security vs. Liberty

Counsel for the petitioners highlighted that their clients had consistently cooperated with the investigating authorities and had not been named as primary suspects in the chargesheet. Emphasizing the Supreme Court’s observations in S.G. Vombatkere v. UOI , the defense maintained that the continued reliance on these measures was arbitrary.

Conversely, the State argued that the nature of the allegations—involving international jurisdictions and alleged conspiracies against the government—justified the LOC. The prosecution contended that preventing the petitioners from traveling was a necessary precautionary measure to ensure they would remain available for trial, citing the sensitivity of the case concerning public order and national security.

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice Sanjeev Narula found the State’s arguments regarding "flight risk" unpersuasive. A pivotal factor in the Court's decision was the petitioners' track record: they had been permitted to travel abroad multiple times during the pendency of the case, and on each occasion, they returned to India.

"The prolonged nature of the investigation, without any formal charge being framed, undermines the justification for perpetuating travel restrictions," the Court noted. By allowing the petitioners to travel previously, the agencies themselves had implicitly acknowledged that the claimants posed no real threat of absconding.

Key Observations

The High Court’s order resonates with firm principles regarding the exercise of state power:

• On the flight risk fallacy: "A crucial factor that weighs against the continuation of the LOC is that the Petitioners have been permitted to travel abroad on multiple occasions during the pendency of these proceedings and have consistently returned to India."
• On constitutional implications: "In the absence of a specific order from a judicial authority directing the Petitioners to remain within the country, the continuation of the LOC would be arbitrary and excessive, serving no reasonable purpose other than imposing an undue and indefinite restraint on their fundamental right to travel."
• On the test of necessity: "Given that the FIR does not specifically implicate the Petitioners as accused, and the investigation remains inconclusive, this Court finds no reason to allow the LOC to continue any further."

Final Verdict: A Return to Movement

The High Court has formally allowed the petition, quashing the LOCs against Petitioners No. 1 and 2. This decision serves as a vital precedent, emphasizing that an LOC is an "exceptional measure" that cannot be utilized as a tool for indefinite harassment in the absence of tangible progress in a criminal investigation. For the petitioners, the order marks the end of a four-year wait for the restoration of their freedom, reinforcing the judiciary's role as a watchdog against the overreach of investigative agencies.