Look Out Circulars must rest on specific material and lawful authority; routine commercial default alone is insufficient.

Look Out Circulars were described as an exceptional restraint on the right to travel under Article 21 and not a routine debt-recovery or supervisory tool. They were said to require lawful authority, independent application of mind, specific material showing evasion or a cognizable offence, and periodic review; routine loan default, guarantor status, former directorship, or ordinary revenue concerns were stated to be insufficient. The LOC power of public sector banks was treated as unavailable, and the economic-interest ground was construed narrowly to grave systemic impact. Where chargesheets or complaints were already pending before a competent court, the proper course was to seek modification or cancellation before the appropriate forum, rather than writ relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Look Out Circulars issued at the instance of public sector banks, financial institutions, investigative agencies, or ministries were sustainable where no subsisting cognizable offence, credible material of absconding, or independent application of mind was shown; and (ii) whether petitioners in cases where chargesheets or complaints were already pending before competent courts ought to be relegated to the originating forum for relief instead of obtaining quashing in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether Look Out Circulars issued at the instance of public sector banks, financial institutions, investigative agencies, or ministries were sustainable where no subsisting cognizable offence, credible material of absconding, or independent application of mind was shown.

Analysis: The right to travel abroad was treated as part of personal liberty under Article 21 and could be curtailed only by a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law. The governing LOC regime was held to be an exceptional coercive measure, not a routine debt-recovery or supervisory device. LOCs issued merely because of loan default, status as guarantor or former director, or routine revenue concerns were held unsustainable absent a cognizable offence, specific material of evasion, or a speaking order based on independent scrutiny. The power of public sector banks to seek LOCs was held unavailable, and the economic-interest clause was construed narrowly to cover only grave, systemic or national-level impact. On the facts of the batch, the impugned LOCs in the petitions placed in this category did not satisfy the governing standards and continued mechanically without proper review.

Conclusion: The LOCs challenged in the petitions covered by this category were quashed and set aside, with ancillary travel and intimation conditions in specified cases.

Issue (ii): Whether petitioners in cases where chargesheets or complaints were already pending before competent courts ought to be relegated to the originating forum for relief instead of obtaining quashing in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Where investigation had culminated in a chargesheet or complaint and the criminal proceedings were pending before the competent trial court, the appropriate course was to seek modification or cancellation of the LOC before that court or the forum that issued it. The writ court treated this as part of the layered grievance-redressal structure recognised in the LOC jurisprudence and declined to decide those LOCs on merits in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioners in this category were relegated to the appropriate forum for relief in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The batch was disposed of by quashing the LOCs in the petitions found unsustainable on merits, while leaving open and directing recourse to the appropriate forum in the remaining petitions where pending criminal proceedings made that course more suitable.

Ratio Decidendi: An LOC, being a coercive restraint on the fundamental right to travel, can survive only if grounded in law, supported by specific and credible material, issued by a competent authority acting independently, and kept under periodic review; routine commercial defaults or mere association with a defaulting entity are insufficient to justify it.

---