Quashing of Look Out Circular / Notice (LOC) : Safeguarding Personal Liberty under Article 21

What is Look Out Circular/Notice

Look Out Circular/Notice is in the form of request letter issued by Legal Enforcement Agencies to Immigration Authorities (Bureau of Immigration) to monitor and control the moment during arrival and departure of an Individual at various points of entry and exit such as airports, seaports and land borders.   

Look Out Circular/Notice once issued will not lapse automatically unless a request was send by Legal Enforcement Agencies to the Immigration Authorities (Bureau of Immigration)  for deletion of the Look Out Notice/Circular.

 Objective for Issuance of  Look Out Circular/ Notice

Primary Objective for issuance of Look Out Circular/Notice is to ensure that the accused or person wanted by Legal Enforcement Agencies should not leave India or if he enters India Legal Enforcement Agencies (who issued the Look Out Circular/Notice) be informed immediately and thereafter accused or person wanted be detained/arrested and be not allowed to leave India, so as to ensure he be available in India to face Legal legal consequences of his actions and do not evade the justice by leaving the jurisdiction and be available India to face the Legal Proceedings as required by Law. 

An Individual against Look Out Circular/Notice is issued have to face legal implications in terms of restrictions on Travel Abroad, Potential Detention and Legal Proceedings. However, its misuse or mechanical continuation can severely infringe upon a person’s fundamental rights—particularly the Right to Travel Abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Who can issue Look Out Circular/Notice

Though there is no Codified Law in India, which empower Legal Enforcement Agencies to issue a Look Out Circular/ Notice,     

However Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had time and again issued guidelines under multiple Office Memorandums (OMs) to outline the conditions and circumstances under which a Look Out Circular/Notice can be issued, designates specific authorities as being permitted to request for issuance of Look Out Circular/Notice, and provide the procedure by way of which a Look Out Circular/Notice may be issued by Immigration Authorities (Bureau of Immigration) .

Look Out Circular/Notice can be issued by Police, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Research and Analysis Wing, Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate, Deputy Magistrate, Joint Secretary/Deputy Secretary Level Officers and any Criminal Court in India can direct for issuance of Look Out Notice. However, before issuance of Look Out Notice/Circular the Legal Enforcement Agencies must ensure that the Look Out Notice/Circular is issued judiciously, ensuring that the legal process is followed and the rights of the accused/ person wanted are respected.

Look Out Notice/Circular can be issued against individuals involved in cognizable offences in  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or any other penal laws, however in cases where the offence is a non- cognizable offence, individuals cannot be arrested or detained or be prevented from leaving the country by the Immigration Authorities. In such a situation the Originating agency can only make a request that they be informed about the arrival or departure of the subject of Look Out Notice/Circular and detention/arrest of an individual in non cognizable offence should be the last resort only if Non Bailable Warrants have been passed or such individual is declared as Proclaimed Offender and not otherwise.

 Judicial Intervention Vs Issuance of Look Out Notice/Circular

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt. Director & Ors clarified the position for issuance of the Look Out Circular/Notice and observed as follows:-

Q1) What are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of Look-out-Circular and under what circumstances?

Ans- Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

Q2) What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Look-out-Circular?

Ans- The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for Look Out Circular/Notice to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), giving details & reasons for seeking Look Out Circular/Notice. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening Look Out Circular/ Notice by passing an order in this respect.

Q3) What is the remedy available to the person against whom such Look Out Circular/Notice has been opened?

Ans- The person against whom Look Out Circular/ Notice is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of Look Out Circular/ Notice & explain that Look Out Circular/ Notice was wrongly issued against him. Look Out Circular/ Notice can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.

Q4) What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought before it and under what circumstances the subordinate courts can intervene?

Ans- Look Out Circular/ Notice is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts’ jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling Look Out Circular/ Notice is with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBW (Non-bailable warrants) or affirming NBWs.

Further Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Shri Vikram Sharma v Union of India & Ors. held that a “request for issuance of Look Out Notice/Circular cannot be made by all Statutory Bodies”, by observing that :-

• Criminal courts dealing with cases of criminal law enforcement can issue directions, which may result in the issuance of Look Out Circular/Notice.

• The power to suspend, even temporarily, the passport of a citizen, the power to issue Look Out Notice/Circular , the power to ‘off-load’ a passenger and prevent him or her from travelling are all extraordinary powers, vested in the criminal law enforcement agencies by the statutory law.

• Finally, the court observed that it is imperative that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) should issue further clarificatory circulars or Office Memoranda clearly stating that the request for issuance of LOCs cannot ’emanate’ from statutory bodies.

Pursuant to the abovementioned two decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Ministry of Home Affairs issued OM dated 27^th October 2010.

Can Public Sector Banks(PSBs) issue Look Out Circular/Notice

In 2018 Office Memorandum, the PSBs were given with the power to issue Look Out Notice/Circular and the Chairman/ Managing Directors of the Public Sector Banks were authorised to issue Look Out Circular/Notice strictly against “Wilful Defaulters” and only against particular person if departure of particular person is perceived to be detrimental to the economic interest of India or if the departure of such person from India ought not to be permitted in the larger public interest and not against all Loan Defaulters’.

Thought the term “Wilful Defaulter” is not explained in the 2018 Office Memorandum, it derives it significance from “Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters” issued by Reserve Bank Of India, which provides the mechanism and certain parameters for identifying/declaring whether a loan default by an individual, business enterprise etc. ought to be categorized as a Wilful Default and the Hon’ble Courts have consistently cautioned that LOCs cannot be used as debt recovery tools.

Article 21 of The Constitution of India Vs Look Out Circular/Notice

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 observed that “Personal Liberty” within the meaning of Article 21 of The Constitution of India includes within in its ambit the right to travel abroad and consequently, no person can be deprived of this right except according to reasonable restrictions prescribed by law, at the same time Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the procedure established by law must not be arbitrary or fanciful; it must satisfy the requirements of natural justice and fairness. 

Legal Remedies against the Look Out Circular/Notice

The process of issuing a Look Out Circular/ Notice must adhere to principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. Issuing LOCs randomly or in a blanket manner without justification infringes upon basic Fundamental Right, provided in Article 21 of The Constitution of India (The Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which encompasses the Right to Travel Abroad without unreasonable restrictions).

Following are the Legal Remedies which can be availed for getting the Look Out Circular/Notice cancelled or deleted:-

1. Approach Originating Agency– An individual who is subject to the Look Out Circular/Notice submit a request to the issuing authority, detailing reasons why it may have been issued in error or unfairly. If the authority finds the representation compelling, it can cancel or retract the Look Out Circular/Notice.

• Submitting to Join Investigation/ Attend Court: If the Look Out Circular/Notice is issued against a person who is evading to join investigation or absconding Court, then he can join investigation by presenting himself to the Investigating Officer (IO) or by attending Court. Typically, this results in the Authorities/Court believing that the intention of the Look Out Circular/Notice has been achieved and subsequently withdraws the Look Out Circular/Notice.
• Move an application to the Concerned Court having Jurisdiction to Cancel Look Out Circular/Notice:  An Individual against whom Look Out Circular/Notice is issued can move an application to the Concerned Court having Jurisdiction and get the Look Out Circular/Notice deleted by showing that the Look Out Circular/Notice is arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, issued without legal justification and is violative of his Fundamental Rights to Life and Personal Liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of The Constitution of India.

• Filing Writ Petition in High Court under Article 226: Most Common and effective Remedy as Article 226 empowers the High Courts to direct the Legal Enforcement Agencies quash or cancel the Look Out Circular/ Notice mainly on the ground that the Look Out Circular/Notice is issued without following the due process of Law and the grounds for issuance of Look Out Notice/Circular are not justified and mainly that the issuance of Look Out Notice/ Circular is clearly violative of the Fundamental Rights of an Individual against whom the Look Out Notice/Circular is issued.

Look Out Notice/Circular Quashed by Hon’ble High Courts

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Inderpreet Singh Wadhwa V/s Union Of India in W.P.(CRL)2730/2025 – SFIO Case

Key facts

• Petitioner was an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and UK resident.
• LOC issued during SFIO investigation.
• Under trial but not convicted.
• Sought suspension/removal of LOC.
• Authorities alleged flight risk without concrete proof.

Ruling

• Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
  • LOC must be justified by active non‑cooperation or evasion
  • Citizenship or foreign residence alone is not sufficient
• The Court examined whether the petitioner:
  • Responded to summons
  • Disclosed documents
  • Appeared when required

Looking at the facts and circumstances, Hon’ble Court found that the cooperation was established, the Court leaned toward relaxation or suspension of the LOC and Suspended the Look Out Circular/Notice of the petitioner as the petitioner was Overseas Citizen, employed in Switzerland, which requires him to be travel for professional responsibilities and petitioner two daughters and wife resides in Switzerland.

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maria Ramesh v. Union of India and Anr. (2026) in W.P (C) 15701/2022  whereinLookout Circular has been issued against the Petitioner only because of the inability of the company to repay its debts for which the Petitioner stood guarantee. There are no criminal proceedings against the Petitioner and there is no allegation that the Petitioner was instrumental in defalcation or siphoning off the money. The Bank has already initiated steps against the Petitioner and the company by taking steps under the RDDB Act, SARFAESI Act and under the IBC. This Court is of the opinion that after resorting to all the remedies available in law, the Bank cannot open a Lookout Circular as an arm-twisting tactic to recover debt from a person who is otherwise unable to pay more so when there are no allegations that he was engaged in any fraud or in any siphoning off or defalcation of the amounts given as loan. Hon’ble Delhi High Court further observed that the petitioner was not arrested in connection with the said FIR and was granted anticipatory bail, which continues to operate till date. Thereafter, the petitioner has remained diligent and available to the investigating agency and has joined the investigation as and when required, it was further observed that where an petitioner does not pose a flight risk and has adhered to earlier travel conditions, continued operation of LOC without fresh or contemporaneous material is an impermissible restraint on personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21 of The Constitution of India, and that mere pendency of investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify prolonged operation of an LOC and continued operation of the LOC operates as a restraint on the petitioner’s personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The absence of any supervening circumstance warranting restraint on the petitioner’s right to travel for the purposes of investigation renders the continuation of the LOC unnecessary, considering the abovementioned facts Hon’ble Delhi High Court has quashed the Look Out Circular/Notice.

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Anant Raj Kanoria v. Union of India & Anr. (2026) held that mechanical continuation of a LOC in the absence of necessity for the petitioner’s participation in the investigation is prima facie arbitrary, particularly where the petitioner has neither evaded process of law nor exhibited any intent to obstruct investigation.

In such circumstances, the continued restraint imposed upon the petitioner by way of the LOC operates as an unwarranted restriction on his personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution without any contemporaneous justification. The mechanical continuation of the LOC, despite the absence of necessity of the petitioner for investigation at this stage, renders the restraint prima facie arbitrary, particularly when the petitioner has neither evaded the process of law nor shown any inclination to obstruct the investigation.

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Vineet Gupta & Pranav Gupta v. Union of India (2026) summarized guiding principles governing issuance, continuance and judicial review of LOCs, inter alia, that: (i) LOC substantially impacts the right to travel under Article 21; (ii) it must be exercised sparingly and strictly per governing OMs; (iii) continuation is not indefinite and requires periodic review; (iv) the burden lies on the originating agency to justify legality, necessity and proportionality; and (v) where the subject has cooperated and has not evaded process, continued operation of LOC amounts to unjustified restriction on personal liberty and in such circumstances where the petitioner is not shown to be non cooperative or evading the Police Investigation or avoiding to appear before the Hon’ble Courts as and when required, continuation of LOC doesn’t seem to be justified violating Article 21 Fundamental Right of an Individual.

On the anvil of the aforesaid discussion, there does not seem to be any justification to continue the existence of the LOC(s) in the instant case and therefore the Look Out Notice/Circular is hereby quashed. 

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Thilakasri Krupanand & Ors. v. Union of India Through Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. (2025) observed Pertinently, it is undisputed that the investigation has been ongoing for nearly four years, and yet, no chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioners. The record does not indicate any travel restriction imposed by a competent court. The prolonged nature of the investigation, without any formal charge being framed, undermines the justification for perpetuating travel restrictions. In the absence of a specific order from a judicial authority directing the Petitioners to remain within the country, the continuation of the LOC would be arbitrary and excessive, serving no reasonable purpose other than imposing an undue and indefinite restraint on their fundamental right to travel.

Additionally, as noted earlier, the Petitioners have cooperated fully with the investigation, appearing before the Investigating Officer whenever summoned. There is no material placed on record to suggest non- cooperation or any attempt on the part of the Petitioners to evade the legal proceedings against them. In such circumstances, the issuance of an LOC, an exceptional measure meant to prevent absconding individuals from evading legal proceedings, cannot be justified against persons who have shown no inclination to flee or obstruct the course of justice. Given that the FIR does not specifically implicate the Petitioners as accused, and the investigation remains inconclusive, this Court finds no reason to allow the LOC to continue any further.

For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition is allowed and the LOCs issued against the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are hereby quashed.

Puja Chadha v. Directorate of Enforcement W.P © 8946/2025 Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the petitioner has nit been named in any prosecution complaint, despite the investigation is being carried from 2017,  “familial association with an accused, by itself, is not sufficient to justify the issuance of an LOC”

“Clause (L) of the 2021 Memorandum carves out an exception permitting issuance of an LOC, inter alia, on grounds relating to the “economic interests of India” and “larger public interest”, it has been held that such an exception cannot be invoked loosely or on the basis of conjecture. While the expressions employed are of wide amplitude, their application must be circumscribed by reasonableness and supported by cogent material”.

It is noticed that since the registration of the ECIR in 2017, the petitioner has voluntarily travelled to India, including on 23.03.2025, despite ongoing proceedings against her relatives and the subsistence of the impugned LOC. It is emphasized by the petitioner that she has cooperated fully, joined investigation, and undergone interrogation. Her mobile phone has been seized, and she has provided all information within her knowledge. Importantly, the petitioner affirms and undertakes that she shall continue to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating authorities as and when directed.

It is also extremely relevant that the petitioner is a British citizen, and the visa issued in her favour has expired / is about to expire. She is stated to be suffering from serious health conditions. Furthermore, her minor son, aged 15 years, has been left deprived of his mother’s care and attention.

In the circumstances, subject to the petitioner filing the aforesaid undertaking on affidavit (with advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondents), the impugned LOC against the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to travel back to the United Kingdom (her home country). The Bureau of Immigration / Immigration Authorities are directed to facilitate the petitioner’s departure from India (even if her visa has expired). 

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Thilakasri Krepanand & Ors v. Union of India through Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr, 2025 DHC, the Hon’ble Court held that “There is no material placed on record to suggest non- cooperation or any attempt on the part of the Petitioners to evade the legal proceedings against them. In such circumstances, the issuance of an LOC, an exceptional measure meant to prevent absconding individuals from evading legal proceedings, cannot be justified against persons who have shown no inclination to flee or obstruct the course of justice”.

 Practical Litigation Strategy

From a defence perspective, the following approach is effective:

1. Assess the LOC basis.
2. Establish cooperation record.
3. Highlight absence of NBWs or coercive steps.
4. Demonstrate roots in India (family, business, assets).
5. Challenge proportionality of restriction.
6. Invoke Article 21 Jurisprudence.

Conclusion

Look Out Notices/ Circulars are intended to serve as exceptional safeguards, not routine instruments of coercion. Courts have made it abundantly clear that:

• LOCs must be used sparingly
• They must be supported by cogent material
• They must satisfy necessity and proportionality
• They cannot override Fundamental Rights under Article 21

• They cannot continue indefinitely
• They must satisfy the test of necessity, proportionality, and fairness.

Ultimately, the judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring that executive powers do not override the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of India.

Liberty cannot be curtailed on mere apprehensions, administrative convenience, or mechanical exercise of power.

As jurisprudence evolves, the balance between State Interest and Individual Freedom continues to tilt in favour of constitutional safeguards—ensuring that LOCs remain a tool of necessity, not oppression.

www.kapilchandna.legal