Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41339

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Amit Ashok Vyas – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.6227 OF 2024|WRIT PETITION No.5800 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravindranath K., Ramakrishna Srinivasan, Harsha Swaroop P., Sarah Sunny
For the Respondents: Arvind Kamath K., H. Shanthi Bhushan, Harish Ganapathy

Look Out Circulars are executive edicts, and trial courts lack the jurisdiction to recall, suspend, or modify them. Authority to challenge the legality or seek the withdrawal of such circulars is vested exclusively in the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Look Out Circular (LOC) - Jurisdiction of Trial Courts - Issuance and cancellation/recall of LOC is an executive function governed by guidelines issued by the Union Government - Trial Court does not possess jurisdiction to entertain applications for recall or modification of LOC - Such powers are vested solely within the constitutional canopy of Writ Courts. (Paras 5, 8, 9, 11)

(B) Fundamental Rights - Article 21 - Right to travel - Right to travel abroad is a facet of the right to personal liberty but is subject to reasonable restrictions under the procedure established by law - A subject is entitled to be informed of the reasons for the restriction and provided a copy of the LOC at the time of detention. (Paras 6, 7, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Following a matrimonial dispute, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and a Look Out Circular was issued. The petitioner subsequently filed an application before the Magistrate presiding over the criminal proceedings to recall the LOC, which was allowed. The Union of India challenged this order, arguing that the Magistrate acted beyond their jurisdiction by entertaining an application involving an executive order. The petitioner in the companion petition sought various reliefs, including guidelines for LOC procedures and departmental action against police officers.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction by entertaining and allowing the application to recall the LOC. The court clarified that LOCs are executive edicts, and challenges to their legality must be brought before the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that allowing trial courts to adjudicate on LOCs would lead to anarchy and encroach upon the established judicial framework. The court also observed that trial courts must not entertain such applications under any pretext.

Issues: Whether a Magistrate court has the jurisdiction to recall or modify a Look Out Circular issued by the investigating agency; and whether the procedure for issuance and cancellation of a LOC mandates the disclosure of reasons and documentation to the subject at the time of interception.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a LOC is an executive order and the power to rescind or uphold it is vested solely in Constitutional Courts. Trial courts are confined to adjudicating the criminal lis and lack the authority to interfere with executive administrative measures such as LOCs. Any such interference by a Magistrate is an act in excess of jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of; the order passed by the Magistrate recalling the LOC was nullified by the clarification of legal principles, and strict instructions were issued to all criminal courts regarding the lack of jurisdiction to interfere with LOCs.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to pils and loc issuance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history and arguments regarding loc jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
3. trial courts lack jurisdiction to challenge executive locs. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. final orders and directive prohibiting trial court loc interference. (Para 13)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

Both these petitions are preferred by the husband and wife. In writ Petition No.5800 of 2024 wife is the petitioner and Union of India, Bureau of Immigration, the State, the Station House Officer of jurisdictional Police Station and the husband are the respondents.

Writ Petition No.6227 of 2024 is filed by the husband seeking prayers inter alia for recall of the Look Out Circular (‘LOC’ for short) hanging on his head. The respondents therein are the Union of India, Chief Immigration Officer, Station House Officer of Basavanagudi Women’s Police Station, Commissioner of Police, City of Bangalore.

2. The prayer in Writ Petition No.5800 of 2024 filed by the wife is quashment of Section 41A Cr.P.C., notice issued against the 5th respondent/husband and a consequential mandamus seeking a direction to arrest the 5th respondent, produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate and to initiate a departmental inquiry against the officers who had let him off and a further mandamus to issue detailed guidelines regarding procedure to be followed.

3. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Srinivasan, Sri Harsha Swaroop P. and Ms. Sarah Sunny, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.5800 of 2024 and for the proposed applicant in W.P.No.6227 of 2024 along with Dr. Renuka V.N., Sign Language Interpreter for Ms. Sarah Sunny; Sri K.Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions; Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4 in both the writ petitions and Sri K.Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.5800 of 2024 and for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6227 of 2024.

Page no.6 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 06.12.2025

4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

4.1. For the sake of convenience the parties to the lis in both these petitions would be addressed as per their relationship i.e., husband and wife. One Amit Ashok Vyas is the husband and one Smt. Savitha Pareek is the wife. In terms of the averments in the petition filed by the husband, he goes to Scotland for his higher studies and has been continuously residing in Scotland. The husband later becomes a citizen of United Kingdom after several years of residence in Scotland. On becoming a citizen of United Kingdom, the husband now has a passport of United Kingdom. On 01-04-2019 the husband got divorce from his first wife through a Court of law in Scotland. The averment is that, since the husband became single after the divorce, his family members uploaded his resume in a marriage portal namely All India Pareek Vaivahik Samiti.

4.2. The parents of the wife after looking several profiles, are said to have agreed to get their daughter married to the husband. On 05-04-2023, the parents of both the husband and the wife fixed the marriage on 21-05-2023. The wife claims that it is for the first time she saw the husband live on the said date. The next day i.e., on 22-05-2023 the marriage comes to be registered. On 23-05-2023 an incident crops up and according to the narration in the complaint by the wife, she comes across a message on the phone of the husband from one Ms.Trupti, which according to the wife was inappropriate and sexually explicit conversation. This is said to have caused distress to the wife. When the wife confronts with the husband, it is the allegation that the husband physically assaulted her and whipped with his bel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41339

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM. Nagaprasanna, JAmit Ashok Vyas – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.6227 OF 2024|WRIT PETITION No.5800 OF 2024

Look Out Circulars are executive edicts, and trial courts lack the jurisdiction to recall, suspend, or modify them. Authority to challenge the legality or seek the withdrawal of such circulars is vested exclusively in the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Cases Referred (3)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Amit Ashok Vyas – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.6227 OF 2024|WRIT PETITION No.5800 OF 2024