Court quashes Look Out Circular against journalist, upholding liberty rights and allowing travel

The Court quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against a journalist, allowing her to travel abroad for professional commitments. The Court found the LOC was hastily issued without sufficient grounds, violating the petitioner's liberty rights. Despite allegations of misappropriation of funds, the Court noted the petitioner's cooperation with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and set conditions for her travel, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and investigative needs. The LOC was set aside, but ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner remained unaffected.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of Look Out Circular/Directions restricting travel abroad.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a journalist, sought to quash the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her, preventing her from traveling abroad for professional commitments. She argued that the LOC was issued hastily to obstruct her from attending global events, despite her cooperation with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and compliance with summons.

2. The petitioner's counsel emphasized her client's global reputation and highlighted her cooperation with the ED, including responding to all summons and offering to appear for further investigation. The counsel contended that the LOC lacked valid reasons and violated the petitioner's right to travel abroad, urging the Court to quash it.

3. On the contrary, the Additional Solicitor General representing the ED alleged that the petitioner misappropriated funds meant for COVID relief, submitting fake bills and hindering the investigation by withholding crucial documents. The ED believed that allowing her to leave the country would impede the probe.

4. The Court noted that the LOC was issued hastily without sufficient grounds, impinging on the petitioner's liberty and movement rights. Since the petitioner had cooperated with the ED previously, there was no justification for presuming she would evade the investigation, leading to the quashing of the LOC.

5. The Court balanced the petitioner's right to travel and free speech with the ED's investigative needs, setting conditions for the petitioner's travel. These conditions included informing the Investigation Agency of travel details, depositing a financial deposit, refraining from tampering with evidence, and committing to return to India by a specified date.

6. The judgment allowed the petition, setting aside the LOC, but clarified that this decision would not affect ongoing criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights with investigative requirements in such cases.

---