Lookout Circulars require disclosed, objective prima facie grounds within exceptional categories before restricting travel rights.

A Lookout Circular affecting travel rights must be supported by contemporaneous, disclosed and objectively verifiable material showing prima facie satisfaction that the case falls within the exceptional grounds under the governing office memoranda. A cryptic bank request, unsupported by objective reasons and relying only on association with a defaulting company or the existence of dues, was held insufficient to justify such a restrictive measure. Later show-cause proceedings could not cure the defect in the original circular. The circular was therefore unlawful and was set aside, reaffirming that it cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary recovery measures.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Lookout Circular issued on the bank's request was sustainable in law in the absence of disclosed reasons and without satisfaction of the exceptional-case requirement under the governing office memoranda, and whether it violated the petitioners' constitutional rights.

Analysis: The challenge centred on the requirement that a Lookout Circular can be issued only where the competent authority, on the basis of inputs received, forms a prima facie view that departure from India would be detrimental to the sovereignty, security, integrity, strategic or economic interests of India, or the larger public interest. The recorded reasons in the circular and the bank's request were found to be cryptic and unsupported by objective material. A mere statement that the petitioners were associated with a defaulting company, or that a large sum was due, was held insufficient to justify such a restrictive measure. The Court also held that subsequent material, including later show-cause proceedings, could not validate a prior circular. The issuing authority was expected to verify at least prima facie that the stated grounds fell within the exceptional categories contemplated by the relevant office memoranda before enforcing such a serious restraint on travel.

Conclusion: The Lookout Circular was unlawful and could not be sustained; the writ petitions succeeded and the circular was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that a Lookout Circular must rest on contemporaneous, disclosed and objectively supportable grounds falling within the governing exceptional categories, and that it cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary recovery measures.

Ratio Decidendi: A Lookout Circular affecting personal liberty and travel rights can be issued only on disclosed, objective and prima facie material showing that the case falls within the exceptional grounds prescribed by the governing instructions; a cryptic or unsupported request is insufficient.

---