Lookout Circular under Sections 10A and 10B Passports Act 1967 upheld for POCSO accused

The Karnataka HC dismissed a petition seeking recall of a Lookout Circular (LOC) that restricted the petitioner's international travel. The court held that LOCs, issued under Sections 10A and 10B of the Passports Act 1967, are powerful tools enabling state authorities to prevent subjects from traveling abroad to ensure availability for interrogation, trial, or inquiry. The petitioner, facing charges under the POCSO Act, sought permission for official travel abroad. The HC ruled that since the criminal case remained pending without stay or quashing by any competent court, the LOC could not be recalled. The court rejected the argument requiring prior notice to the subject before LOC issuance, noting it would defeat the purpose. The petitioner was only entitled to receive a copy of the LOC explaining travel restrictions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance and validity of Lookout Circular (LOC)
2. Right to travel as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
3. Procedural requirements and principles of natural justice concerning LOC
4. Conditions for issuance, subsistence, and deletion of LOC
5. Post-decisional hearing and procedural fairness

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance and Validity of Lookout Circular (LOC):
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police to recall the LOC issued in connection with Crime No. 145 of 2021, which prevented him from traveling abroad. The LOC was issued following allegations of sexual abuse under Sections 376AB of the IPC and various sections of the POCSO Act. The petitioner was stopped at Bangalore International Airport due to this LOC.

2. Right to Travel as a Fundamental Right:
The petitioner argued that the right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He emphasized that he needed to travel for official duties and that the LOC was issued without prior notice or a copy being served to him. The court acknowledged that the right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21, but it is not an absolute right and can be curtailed under certain conditions.

3. Procedural Requirements and Principles of Natural Justice Concerning LOC:
The court examined the procedural framework for issuing LOCs, as outlined in various official memoranda and guidelines. It noted that LOCs can be issued by the police or court and are executed by the Bureau of Immigration. The guidelines stipulate that LOCs can be issued in cognizable offenses where the accused is evading arrest or not appearing in court despite non-bailable warrants and other coercive measures. The court emphasized that the issuance of LOCs must comply with principles of natural justice, which include informing the subject of the LOC about the reasons for its issuance at the time of apprehension.

4. Conditions for Issuance, Subsistence, and Deletion of LOC:
The court referred to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, which provide detailed procedures for the issuance, subsistence, and deletion of LOCs. These guidelines require that the originator of the LOC must review it periodically and inform the Bureau of Immigration if the LOC is challenged or stayed by a court. The court highlighted that the LOC must be based on valid reasons, and the subject of the LOC should be informed about these reasons when they are stopped from traveling.

5. Post-decisional Hearing and Procedural Fairness:
The court rejected the petitioner's contention that he should have been given prior notice before the issuance of the LOC. It cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India*, which held that while prior notice may not be required, a post-decisional hearing must be provided to ensure procedural fairness. The court reiterated that the subject of an LOC must be informed about the reasons for its issuance when they are stopped from traveling, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld.

Conclusion:
The court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to consider the petitioner's representation for recalling the LOC and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The court emphasized that the petitioner should be provided with a copy of the LOC and the reasons for its issuance at the time of apprehension, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

---