The right to travel is a fundamental right. LOCs are coercive measures restricted to exceptional cases involving cognizable offences or valid security concerns. They cannot be used for routine debt recovery, and any restriction lacking statutory backing or specific, credible justification for absconding is unconstitutional.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to travel abroad - Fundamental right - Look Out Circulars (LOCs) - Coercive executive measure - Must be founded on law, and procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable - Executive instructions cannot substitute legislative mandate for curtailing fundamental rights. (Paras 5, 7, 9, 34)

(B) Look Out Circulars - Issuance and continuation - Prerequisites - Limited to cognizable offences under penal laws - Requires specific, credible material demonstrating deliberate evasion of arrest or likelihood of absconding - Prohibited as tool for routine debt collection - Power to issue cannot be conferred upon financial institutions through administrative circulars - Periodic review is mandatory to ensure constitutional validity. (Paras 13, 16, 32, 34, 37, 38)

(C) Judicial Review - Writ jurisdiction - Available when restraint is arbitrary, disproportionate, or lacks statutory foundation - Burden of proof lies on originating agency to justify necessity using credible evidence - Where chargesheets are filed and matters are pending before trial courts, those courts are the appropriate forum for seeking modification or cancellation of LOCs. (Paras 32, 38, 143, 156)

Facts of the case:
A batch of writ petitions challenged the legality of various LOCs issued against individuals at the instance of financial institutions, ministries, and investigative agencies. Petitioners contended that these coercive measures restricted their movement, infringed upon personal liberty for non-criminal defaults, or continued despite long-standing cooperation with ongoing investigations.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the right to travel is an integral part of personal liberty. LOCs issued solely by financial institutions regarding loan defaults without a criminal offence are unsustainable. Furthermore, mechanical continuation of such measures without review is arbitrary. The court categorized cases and decided to quash those where no cognizable offence existed or where previous cooperation was demonstrated, while relegating those under active trial court supervision to the appropriate jurisdictional authority.

Issues: Whether the issuance and continuation of LOCs by financial institutions and state agencies, in the absence of valid statutory backing or pending criminal proceedings, violate the fundamental right to travel under Article 21, and what scope of judicial review applies in such matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that LOCs constitute an extraordinary coercive measure that cannot be invoked in routine civil or commercial disputes or as an arm-twisting tactic. A valid restriction must satisfy the triple test of being legally mandated, procedurally fair, and proportional to a legitimate state interest, failing which it must be quashed as unconstitutional.

Result: Petitions disposed of; the impugned LOCs in the relevant matters were quashed and set aside with specific travel conditions, while other petitions were relegated to the appropriate trial courts for adjudication.

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. This batch of petitions has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, all converging upon a single, pressing legal question, namely, whether the issuance and continuation of Look Out Circulars (hereinafter “LOCs”), a coercive executive measure directly imperilling the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, is legally sustainable in the circumstances evinced in each of these petitions. While the individual facts of each petition present their own discrete matrix, the overarching legal issues are common, and it is, therefore, appropriate to take up these petitions together for a comprehensive adjudication by this common judgment.

2. The present order disposes of 33 writ petitions concerning the validity, or the lack thereof, of the LOCs issued at the behest of financial institutions, investigative agencies, and govt. departments/authorities. The oldest petition in the present batch, namely, W.P.(C) 17646/2022 was instituted on 15.12.2022, and is getting disposed of, vide the present order, after a period of approximately 3.5 years. The Court in the said petition has passed 23 interim orders, and on 3 occasions, the Court has passed orders allowing the petitioner’s travel abroad. Cumulatively, in all the petitions combined about 612 orders have been passed, including approximately 110 orders where permission to travel abroad has been granted. Naturally, for the said orders, consequent orders/directions have also been passed by the concerned Registrar. In none of these cases have the petitioners absconded or fled from the country. Neither has any attempt to do so been alleged, nor does any such material find place on record.

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.

4. Comprehensive survey of the constitutional and statutory foundations governing the right to travel, the historical and regulatory evolution of the LOC regime in India, the relevant Office Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’), and the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts on the subject is imperative for laying down, in clear and unambiguous terms, the governing constitutional and legal principles that shall inform and guide the disposal of this batch of petitions.

B. THE LAW OF LOCs

5. The Constitution of India, in its majestic sweep, guarantees to every person the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The right to travel both within the country and abroad, has been recognised as an integral and constitutionally protected facet of this fundamental guarantee.

6. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam , Assistant Passport Officer,, (1 AIR 1967 SC 1836.) the Supreme Court authoritatively declared that the right to travel abroad is a constitutionally protected right inhering in the concept of personal liberty under Article 21. Passport, being the instrument through which such right is exercised, it was held by the Court, that it cannot be withheld arbitrarily or without authority of law.

7. The constitutional dimensions of this right were elaborated and crystallised in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ., (2 (1978) 1 SCC 248.) Unequivocally, it was held that the procedure for depriving a person of his personal liberty must not be arbitrary, unfair, or u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6667

Cases Referred (1)