INTRODUCTION –
In criminal investigation and national security, administrative mechanisms are very crucial in ensuring the accused or suspected offender is present to be brought before the law. Among such tools, the Look Out Circular (LOC) is frequently used in India to track and bar international travel of persons evading legal proceedings or who are a threat to national interest. The legal proceedings involving or who are a threat to national interest. The laws on the LOCs are unclear, which makes the fundamental constitutional questions regarding personal freedom as well as the limits of executive discretion relevant. This blog seeks to analyse the notion of Look Out Circulars, their issuance, legalities and interpretation through such milestone court judgments, specifically emphasising constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India[1].
WHAT IS A LOOK-OUT CIRCULAR AND WHO CAN ISSUE IT?
Look Out Circular is not categorized in any Indian law, such as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or any special law. Rather, it takes its powers from executive directives and guidelines provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Even though there’s no specific law passed by parliament for it, the Look-Out Circular is still widely used by police and various government bodies as a tool to prevent certain individuals from travelling in or out of the country. An LOC intends to restrain an individual from going out of India or to notify officials upon arrival at any port of entry or departure within India. LOCs tend to be given in cognizable offence cases, particularly if there is a reasonable belief that the individual may flee or avoid the judicial process[2].
Note that the issuance of an LOC cannot be arbitrary. As clarified by judicial rulings, suspicion or administrative expediency alone would be inadequate to order such a coercive instrument. The Office Memorandum (OM) dated 22 February 2021 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs provides consolidated guidelines for the grant of LOCs. These regulations state that LOCs can be granted by senior officers in investigating organizations like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), National Investigation Agency (NIA), Intelligence Bureau (IB), and Police. The other entities authorized to issue LOCs are the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), District Magistrates, officials of public sector banks (Chairman, Managing Director or CEO), and courts of law[3].
The LOC mechanism can be activated against foreign citizens as well as Indian Citizens, if they are wanted in relation to a criminal case or are being investigated for offences that fall within the national security, economic offence, terror, or public interest realm. To submit an LOC request, the originating agency is supposed to give detailed personal information of the individual, such as passport number, photo, and a proper reason for which the LOC is being sought. As per the 2021 OM, LOCs are considered valid until the originating agency asks for their cancellation. There is no fixed expiry, but agencies must review LOCs every 3 months and 1 year.
PRECEDENTS-
Although the administrative purpose of the LOCs is sound, the effect of the circulars upon the basic rights, particularly the “Right to travel abroad”, which is a constituent of “Right to Personal liberty” under Article 21[4] of the Constitution of India, has attracted the attention of the judiciary. The case law on this subject starts from the milestone case of “Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967)[5]”, The Supreme Court in this case held the right to travel overseas to be an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21. It noted that the government cannot curtail this liberty unless suspected by a fair and reasonable law. This doctrine was reaffirmed in the case “Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)[6]”, where the Court held that any measure curtailing personal liberty must be fair, reasonable, and just. The verdict broadened the meaning of Article 21 and laid down that the right to go abroad is not just a privilege, but a fundamental right.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in “Noor Paul v. Union of India (2022)[7]” was also of a similar view, noting that the failure to provide the individual concerned with an LOC goes against the canons of natural justice and procedural fairness in terms of Article 21. The Court ruled that there should be an opportunity of being heard by the person to rebut the reasons on the basis of which the LOC is issued. It also made it clear that in the case of non-cognizable offences, LOCs cannot be utilized to detain or stop a person from leaving, instead, the agency can at best request notice of their arrival or leaving.
A major clarification on the ambit and abuse of LOCs was provided by the Calcutta High Court in the case “Vishambhar Saran v. Bureau of Immigration (2024)[8]”. The Court held that default in loans per se cannot be a basis for granting LOCs unless accompanied by substantial proof that the defaulter is trying to leave the country to avoid legal action. In the present case, no civil or criminal action had been taken against the borrower by the bank, nor had any proof of flight risk been established. The Court reiterated that the phrases “economic interest” or “strategic interest” cannot be abused to encapsulate bank-borrower private disputes, and that LOCs can only be issued in the public interest, not for safeguarding commercial interests.
Likewise, in “N. Prithvi Teja v. Bureau of Immigration (2024)[9]”, the Telangana High Court invalidated an LOC that was issued without following the guidelines in the 2021 OM. The Court reaffirmed that LOCs should only be granted for cognizable offenses or exceptional cases concerning national security or public interest. The mere suspicion or fear that an individual would abscond is not enough. The Court also cited earlier Supreme Court decisions, reiterating that an individual is presumed innocent until established guilty and cannot be deprived of liberty capriciously.
REMEDIES FOR THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM AN LOC IS ISSUES-
A most important part of judicial intervention in LOC matters is the provision of remedies to challenge such circulars. Someone against whom an LOC is issued has several legal options. For one, they can approach the trial court and demonstrate that the LOC was issued erroneously. Two, they can pursue a writ petition under Article 226[10] of the Constitution of India in the relevant High Court if the grant of the LOC contravenes fundamental rights, more so the right to travel. Such courts have frequently provided relief by ordering the authorities to cancel or amend the LOC if it is discovered to be arbitrary or in breach of settled legal procedures. In “Rana Ayyub v. Union of India (2022)[11]”, the court found that the LOC was issued in haste without any justifiable grounds, noting that the petitioner had consistently appeared before investigating agencies. The court held that the LOC interfered with her right to personal liberty and freedom of movement, and set aside and quashed the LOC.
From the Judicial pronouncements, it becomes evident that while LOCs serve an important administrative and national security function, their misuse or mechanical issuance can lead to the violation of constitutional rights. Therefore, a balance must be struck between “the interests of the state in maintaining law and order” and “the individual’s right to liberty and freedom of movement”.
CONCLUSION-
The law of Look Out Circulars in India is continuing to evolve. While the mechanism is effective in preventing absconding or illegal departures in grave criminal and national security matters, its use arbitrarily, especially in civil cases or in the absence of procedural fairness, vitiates the rule of law. LOCS must be based on law, supported by evidence, and subjected to periodic judicial scrutiny. A robust mechanism must ensure that while state interests are protected, citizens are not stripped of their liberties without due process. As law students and future legal practitioners, it is our responsibility to uphold the delicate balance between state power and individual freedom, ensuring that executive actions are always subject to the Constitution and the principles of justice.
Author(s) Name: Sreelatha Daggumati (Mahindra University,Hyderabad)
References:
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 14 & 21.
[2] 2021 MHA Guidelines.
[3] Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Office Memoranda, 1979, 2000, 2010, 2018, and 2021.
[4] Constitution of India, art 21.
[5] Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam, AIR [1967] SC 1836.
[6] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 1 SCC 248.
[7] Noor Paul v. Union of India, [2022] SCC Online P&H 1480.
[8] Vishambhar Saran v. Bureau of Immigration, [2024] SCC Online Cal 123.
[9] N Prithvi Teja v Bureau of Immigration, [2024] SCC Online TS 98.
[10] Constitution of India, art 226.
[11] Rana Ayyub Vs. Union of India and Ors, W.P.(CRL) 714/2022.
