Madras High Court Questions Confidentiality of Look Out Circulars, Says Affected Person Must Know

The Madras High Court has raised significant questions regarding the secrecy surrounding Look Out Circulars (LOCs), observing that an individual affected by such proceedings must be made aware of them. The Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Bureau of Immigration to file affidavits explaining why LOCs are treated as confidential and how a person can obtain permission to travel abroad before a final report is filed.

The Kafkaite Trial Reference

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, presiding over the case, expressed a prima facie view that a person should know about proceedings that affect them. The Court emphasized that India does not follow a "kafkaite trial" but operates in accordance with the Constitution, particularly Articles 21 and 22, which guarantee the right to life and personal liberty and protection against arbitrary arrest. The Court stated, "The Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to an accused person, including the right to know why he is facing adverse proceedings. This country does not follow a kafkaite trial but operates strictly in accordance with the Constitution, particularly Articles 21 and 22 ."

Background of the Case

The petition was filed by K. Padmanabhan, who sought the removal of all LOCs and red flags that prevented him from traveling abroad. During the hearing, his counsel, Mr. H. Karthik Seshadri, informed the Court that the petitioner was unaware of the number of LOCs issued against him. The CBI's Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Mohan, and the Bureau of Immigration's counsel, Ms. M. P. Jaisha, argued that LOCs are confidential documents.

Court's Reasoning and Directions

The Court was not inclined to accept the confidentiality argument. It noted that the right to know is inherent in the constitutional scheme. The Court also sought clarity on how a person can seek permission to travel abroad before the final report is filed and taken cognizance of. The Court directed the respondents to file affidavits addressing two specific issues: the reasons for treating LOCs as confidential, and the mechanism for obtaining travel permission during the pendency of investigation.

What Lies Ahead

The matter has been adjourned to September 16, 2026. This case could set a precedent regarding transparency in the issuance of LOCs, balancing investigative needs with individual rights. The Court's observations underscore the importance of due process and the right to information in criminal proceedings.