Look Out Circulars require tangible grounds and proportional restraint; speculative fear cannot justify restricting foreign travel under Article 21.
A Look Out Circular may continue only where there is cogent material showing evasion of arrest, non-compliance with coercive process, or a real likelihood of flight to evade proceedings. Where investigation has concluded and no prosecution or other pending proceeding exists, speculative apprehension is insufficient to justify travel restraint. Any restriction on the right to travel abroad must also satisfy Article 21 by being just, fair, reasonable, and proportionate; less restrictive safeguards may be preferred where they adequately protect the investigating agency's interest. The article thus underscores that a LOC cannot rest on conjecture after completion of investigation and must be supported by tangible exceptional grounds.
Issues: (i) Whether the conditions necessary for issuance and continuation of the Look Out Circular against the appellant existed; (ii) Whether the subsistence of the Look Out Circular was legally sustainable in view of the appellant's right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): Whether the conditions necessary for issuance and continuation of the Look Out Circular against the appellant existed.
Analysis: The guidelines governing Look Out Circulars require cogent material showing that the person is evading arrest, not appearing despite coercive process, or is likely to leave the country to evade legal proceedings. The record showed that the investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office had already culminated in a report submitted to the Central Government, and no prosecution or pending proceeding had yet been initiated against the appellant. The apprehension that he might not appear in a future proceeding was held to be contingent and speculative. Mere reference to alleged association with the company's affairs, overseas residence, or a possible future prosecution was insufficient to satisfy the exceptional grounds for restricting travel.
Conclusion: The conditions for issuance and continuation of the Look Out Circular were not established.
Issue (ii): Whether the subsistence of the Look Out Circular was legally sustainable in view of the appellant's right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty and any restriction must be just, fair, reasonable, proportionate, and supported by necessity. Since the investigation had concluded and no proceeding was pending, continuation of the Look Out Circular was held to be arbitrary and disproportionate. The Court also noted that less restrictive safeguards, such as an undertaking and disclosure of contact details, could adequately protect the respondents' interest without imposing an absolute travel restraint.
Conclusion: The continuation of the Look Out Circular was unsustainable and infringed Article 21.
Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the order of the Single Judge and quashed the Look Out Circular, while directing the appellant to furnish an undertaking and cooperate if any prosecution is later initiated.
Ratio Decidendi: A Look Out Circular cannot be sustained on speculative apprehension after completion of investigation unless there is tangible material showing evasion, likelihood of flight, or another legally recognised exceptional ground, and any restraint on travel must satisfy proportionality under Article 21.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
