Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

In The Matters Of :
Shivani Modi – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3100 of 2022, CM APPL. 24128 of 2023, CM APPL. 32523 of 2024 & CM APPL. 15879 of 2025, W.P.(C) 7051 of 2024 & CM APPL. 29420 of 2024, W.P.(C) 1978 of 2025, W.P.(C) 6745 of 2025, W.P.(C) 16047 of 2025, W.P.(C) 18435 of 2025 & CM APPL. 76320 of 2025, W.P.(C) 3492 of 2026 & CM APPL. 16852 of 2026
Decided On : 15-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: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, Mr. Vikas Mehta, Ms. Priyambada Mishra, Mr. Kartik Pandey, Advocates, Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priti Verma, Ms. Dhanya Visweswaran, Ms. Shaurya Singh, Ms. Kashvi Bansal, Advocates, Mr Sanjeev Anand Sr. Adv with Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Pranav Mundra, Mr. Balraaj Singh and Mr. Rishabh Dahiya, Advocates, Mr Aditya Wadhwa, Ms Swastika Thourwal, Mr Raunaq Bali, Advocates, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv with Mr. Aditya Dewan, Ms Himangi Kapoor and Mr. Swetank Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Adv., Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Ms. Monica Benjamin, JSC, Mr. Gibran Naushad, JSC, Mr. Rohit Chakraborty, Advocates, Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Mr. Amit Acharya, GPs, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, Adv, Mr. Tribhuvan, Adv and Ms. Anushka Sarraf, Advocates, Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Mr. Rattan Goyal, Mr. Yash Basoya, Mr. Inderpreet Singh and Mr. Kunal Dixit, Advs., Mr Gaurav Gupta SSC, Mr Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr Yojit Pareek, JSC, Mr Surya Jindal, Ms Prakriti Rastogi and Ms Aryama Singh Rajput, Advs., Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr.Ujjwal Tyagi, Mr. Dalip Anand, Advocates, Mr Santosh Kumar Rout SC, Mr. Akshit Mohan, Advocate and Government Pleader, Mr. Ripudamn Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kansal and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advs.

Restrictions on the fundamental right to travel must rely on clear legislative authority and strict procedural proportionality. Administrative circulars cannot serve as a substitute for law, and unauthorized bodies lack the competence to impose travel restraints without demonstrating specific necessity and judicial oversight.

Headnote:(A) Fundamental constitutional rights - Personal liberty - Freedom of movement - Requirements for coercive measures - Necessity for legislative mandate.

(B) Restrictions imposed on the individual right to travel must be balanced against systemic requirements, ensuring that administrative actions do not supersede constitutional protections. Such measures must be transparent, proportionate, and strictly justified by existing legal frameworks.

(C) Procedural fairness requires that any restraint on mobility be based on verified information showing an imminent risk of absconding, rather than mechanical application of guidelines.

(D) Financial institutions often exceed their jurisdictional competence when attempting to initiate restrictions on personal mobility through administrative channels without explicit authorization.

Facts of the case:
Several petitions challenged the legality of travel restrictions imposed upon individuals by administrative circulars originating from financial entities and state agencies. The petitioners argued that these restrictions were imposed without specific legal authority, ignored the principle of fair procedure, and functioned as unauthorized tools for recovery or routine investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the impugned travel restrictions were issued without fulfilling the essential requirements of proportionality and legality. The administrative guidelines failed to establish a nexus between the alleged misconduct and the necessity for a permanent or indefinite travel ban. It was held that financial bodies lack the inherent competence to bypass established criminal law procedures for imposing such restraints.

Issues: Whether executive circulars lacking base in legislation can infringe upon fundamental rights of movement, and whether non-authorized bodies have the capacity to secure such coercive orders without judicial oversight.

Ratio Decidendi: Any limitation on fundamental rights must be rooted in clear legal authority, adhere to a fair and reasonable procedure, and demonstrate clear necessity. The administrative practice of restricting travel without statutory foundation or specific evidence of flight risk is constitutionally infirm.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned travel restrictions set aside.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of writ petitions and adherence to established loc legal framework. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. right to travel as a fundamental right; locs require strict statutory compliance and proportionality. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. international human rights norms inform and enrich interpretation of article 21 and loc legitimacy. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
4. locs issued by financial institutions lack mandatory legal authority and require independent justification. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
5. investigating agencies must provide actionable material; locs cannot be sustained without current criminal proceedings. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
6. mechanically continued locs violate fundamental rights; quashing required absent case-specific justification. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
7. relegation to lower courts for specialized adjudication of locs remains a valid judicial mechanism. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)
8. final disposition and quashing of specific locs with leave to approach competent forums. (Para 78 , 79)

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

INDEX

A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

B. THE LAW OF LOCs

C. INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE ON THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

D. ANALYSIS

I. LOCs ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/BANKS

(i) W.P.(C) 18435/2025

II. LOCs ISSUED BY INVESTIGATING AGENCIES AND MINISTERIES22

(ii) W.P.(C) 3100/2022

(iv) W.P.(C) 6745/2025

(v) W.P.(C) 16047/2025

(vi) W.P.(C) 3492/2026

III. APPROPRIATINESS OF RELEGATING THE PETITIONER TO THE FORUM THAT ISSUED THE LOC

(vii). W.P.(C) 7051/2024

D. CONCLUSION

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. 2026:DHC:3806., 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 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 iss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 818

Cases Referred (3)