Ensuring accountability for accused people is
essential, however the evasion of justice by fleeing jurisdiction poses
challenges. The Look Out Circular (‘LOC’) serves as a
authorities device to stop such flights, empowering immigration
authorities. Despite missing a statutory definition, LOCs have
gained widespread use, prompting considerations. This article explores
these considerations and analyses pertinent case legal guidelines, navigating by
the evolution of LOC laws. From the 1979 memorandum to
current amendments involving public sector banks, the article
emphasizes the urgent want for legislative reform.

I. Introduction

Bringing to justice individuals accused of against the law is a precedence for
each authorized system. On the opposite hand, escaping the authorized course of
in anticipation of penalties and punishments by fleeing from the
implementing jurisdiction is fascinating for a lot of criminals, particularly
those that can afford to take care of themselves overseas. A LOC is an
instrument issued by the federal government as a directive to its
immigration authorities to stop the flight of such individuals. A
LOC prevents an individual from intentionally making an attempt to abscond from
the nation towards an ongoing investigation or felony trial and
serves as an government doc aiding the officers at airports and
seaports in figuring out whether or not a traveller is needed or banned by
any regulation enforcement company throughout the nation.

LOC as a time period, isn’t clearly outlined in statutes, but has
gathered fashionable understanding due to its frequent and
prevalent use by authorities authorities. Indeed, it’s a coercive
measure taken by the chief authorities and therefore must be
exercised and issued with due care and warning. The relative ease
of its issuance, coupled with restricted avenues for getting it
revoked, raises considerations. This article makes an attempt to handle these
considerations and analyse case legal guidelines holding the sphere presently on this
litigious material.

II. Overview of the LOC regime

In 1979, the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) issued an
Office Memorandum (‘OM’) dated 05.09.1979 ¹
(‘1979 OM’), which said that LOCs could possibly be issued to
monitor the arrivals and departures of residents whose
journey/motion is banned by numerous authorities. Government
authorities might thus open an LOC by permission from entities
such because the international ministry, customs authorities, earnings tax
division, CBI, Interpol, Regional Passport Officers, and the
police. This 1979 OM supplied a really slim scope for issuing LOCs,
whereby solely sure authorities might challenge them and that too solely
for a interval of 1 12 months.

Later, within the 12 months 2000, the MHA issued an OM dated 02.12.2000
(‘2000 OM’), laying down the steps to be adopted to challenge
a LOC towards an Indian Citizen. In comparability to the 1979 OM, this
OM included correct administrative supervision for the issuance of
the LOC course of. The 2000 OM was challenged earlier than the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi within the case of Vikram Sharma v. UOI
² and Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director ³.
While deciding these circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court added
additional situations and provisions to the issuance of LOCs and
regularized sure points that led to the misuse and abuse of such
LOCs. Therefore, the MHA issued an in depth and complete OM
dated 27.10.2010 ⁴ (‘2010 OM’).

The MHA additional amended the 2010 OM by the OM dated
19.09.2018 ⁵, (‘2018 OM’), which empowered the
officers of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’)
to open/challenge LOCs. This 2010 OM underwent modifications once more in 2018,
empowering the officers of Public Sector Banks to challenge LOCs. The
2018 modification solely got here to the information of the general public when MHA
launched it by a press launch dated 24.07.2019, specifying
that the officers of public sector banks have been empowered to
request the issuance of LOCs in respect of wilful mortgage defaulters
or fugitive financial offenders. Due to the current framework, the
process governing the issuance of LOCs in India is primarily
based mostly on the aforementioned letters, circulars, and OMs.

Thus, because the LOC regime stands right now, numerous authorities
authorities and ministries such because the MHA, MEA, customs
division, income-tax division, CBI, Interpol, Regional Passport
Officers, police authorities, and even banks might challenge a LOC for
their respective investigation, enforcement, or restoration
functions.

III. Persons towards whom LOC may be issued

LOCs may be issued towards individuals who’re intentionally evading
arrest in courts or when a non-bailable warrant has been issued
towards them and there’s a probability of their evading
arrest/trial. In accordance with the necessities outlined within the
2010 OM, the authorities accountable for issuing LOCs should adhere
to strict situations. LOCs can not and shouldn’t be opened
routinely. Considering that the issuance of an LOC can influence the
basic rights of the people concerned, it’s essential to
train utmost warning. Unfortunately, in sure circumstances, this
warning isn’t being noticed. As a matter of observe, it’s
noticed that LOCs are opened towards people as early as when
the investigation right into a cognizable offence is initiated both by
manner of an FIR or an administrative order, e.g., initiation of
investigation by the SFIO vide orders beneath s. 219 of the Companies
Act, 2013. Even banks would open LOCs towards debtors and their
guarantors when their mortgage accounts could be declared as
non-performing property (‘NPAs’) – this may be prior
to even the declaration of fraud or wilful default by such
debtors.

IV. Multiplicity of LOCs

The energy of issuance of a LOC has been given to a number of
businesses. More usually than not, and nearly all the time in circumstances involving
financial offences, there are a number of authorities businesses, banks,
and different boards which provoke investigations in such circumstances. It is
commonplace that every one businesses provoke their very own LOCs towards the
accused individuals or defaulters. This occurs regardless that even one
LOC is satisfactory sufficient to stop the particular person from leaving the
nation. The motive is obvious – there isn’t a central, shared,
or accessible database accessible to those businesses and banks to
establish whether or not there may be already a LOC issued towards the
involved particular person or not.

The multiplicity of LOCs results in an apparent challenge for the
defending particular person – which jurisdictional courtroom to method to
get reduction and journey overseas? These LOCs could possibly be issued by numerous
businesses positioned in a number of jurisdictions (say, Delhi, Mumbai, or
Kolkata). The multiplicity of areas can also be attributed to the
pan-India jurisdiction of those businesses – it’s attainable
{that a} financial institution default case, the place the borrower is positioned in Mumbai,
could possibly be investigated by CBI Delhi and therefore the LOC could be
opened by CBI Delhi inflicting the jurisdiction to be in Delhi –
so is the distribution of labor and circumstances between the businesses’
workplaces.

To add to this, the unpredictable delay in getting a petition
heard earlier than any decrease or larger courtroom makes it practically not possible
for any particular person to method a number of courts for a easy reduction of
permission to journey overseas for, say, just a few weeks.

The above is compounded by the truth that the issuance of any LOC
isn’t communicated or knowledgeable to the particular person. Thus, it’s
tough to find out the truth that what number of LOCs are open towards
any particular person. The solely methodology accessible to such an individual is to file a
petition or utility earlier than the courtroom (both for travelling
overseas, or for the quashing of the LOC) and make the Bureau of
Immigration a celebration to such petition, and on the outset asking for
the courtroom to direct the Bureau, as an ad-interim or interim reduction,
to offer an entire checklist of all LOCs open towards the particular person.

The complexities posed by the opaque, a number of LOCs issued
towards any particular person could possibly be understood from the final authorized
process that such an individual has to undergo to implement his authorized
proper to journey:

V. Article 21 and the correct to journey abroad

When an LOC is issued, it infringes upon an individual’s proper to
journey, together with their proper to journey abroad. Therefore, a LOC
carries grave penalties, as private liberty, freedom, and
motion are basic facets of each particular person and are thus
protected beneath a. 21 of the Constitution of India (‘the
Constitution’). In the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D
Ramarathnam ⁶, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the correct to journey abroad is a basic proper assured
beneath a. 21 of the Constitution.

While the authorities/State are empowered by the Constitution to
impose restrictions on an individual’s train of basic
rights, the issuance of LOCs jeopardizes an individual’s proper to
journey abroad, making such restriction beneath the issuance of LOC
unfair. In the absence of any statute addressing the violation of a
particular person’s proper to journey abroad throughout the issuance of LOC,
this process is unjust for these towards whom such LOC is
issued.

Specific point out right here is that of public sector banks that are
not fairly thoughtful whereas issuing LOCs, thereby depriving
real and bona fide people of their proper to journey
abroad. It has additionally come to the fore in a number of courtroom circumstances that
even when there’s a dispute between the borrower and the financial institution
concerning the debt, banks nonetheless resort to LOCs as an everyday
coercive restoration measure. Further, within the case of multinational
companies, the place a restriction on journey additional compounds the
enterprise points and results in better losses, banks nonetheless persist
and challenge LOCs. If LOCs are arbitrarily issued, they may
inevitably deprive people of their aforementioned basic
rights.

VI. Misuse and abuse of energy

LOCs are casually and routinely issued towards Indian residents
since solely primary details about an individual is required for
issuance. This prevailing LOC regime is resulting in dire
penalties. With public sector banks now approved to challenge
LOCs, these banks casually method the Bureau of Immigration to
search issuance in each case of NPA or non-repayment of loans,
leading to an abuse of energy.

Regarding an individual’s arrest, a well-established regulation beneath
ss. 41, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(‘CrPC’) have been in place for a substantial interval of
time. This regulation offers provisions for in search of Anticipatory Bail in
anticipation of arrest. However, beneath the LOC regime, such a
treatment isn’t accessible to any particular person, nor are they knowledgeable of the
issuance of an LOC. This has led to an unreasonable train of
energy by the State, infringing upon residents’ basic proper
to journey abroad.

The proven fact that the issuance of a LOC towards an individual isn’t
knowledgeable to him results in opacity, violation of ideas of
pure justice and eventual abuse of energy. As defined above,
the one treatment accessible to such an individual is thru the courtroom,
and this too is gravely compounded in case there are unknown,
a number of LOCs open towards him.

VII. Banks’ LOCs

The 2010 OM doesn’t present any rationale for increasing its
scope to debtors of the general public sector banks, because it was initially
restricted to people concerned in penal crimes and people affecting
nationwide sovereignty. The absence of provisions empowering
authorities just like the DRI or the National Company Law Tribunal, and
proscribing debtors/debtors/guarantors from travelling overseas
raises considerations. Furthermore, the issuance of LOCs by
originators, akin to public sector banks, with out correct intimation
to the debtors is problematic. There can also be an absence of oversight
and regulation concerning the issuance of LOCs by public sector
banks, permitting the originator to delete the LOC with none
established mechanism.

This clearly wants a cautious rethinking. The Reserve Bank of
India (‘RBI’) ought to no less than play the function of a supervisor
or monitoring authority, already being the regulator for banks, on
the issuance of LOCs towards individuals. This could be useful in a
twofold method – first, it could put a verify on the rampancy
of the issuance of LOCs, and second, in case any financial institution has already
issued an LOC, the necessity for issuance of one other LOC by one other financial institution
(say, being part of the lending consortium) could be obviated.
This would convey transparency, make info centrally accessible
to the regulator, and stop a multiplicity of LOCs.

Also, consolidation of LOCs must be achieved in circumstances the place the
banks have moved complaints to any investigating company (e.g., CBI)
concerning any fraud dedicated by the borrower towards whom the financial institution
had issued a LOC, and the matter is now being investigated by such
company. In such circumstances, nearly all the time such an company additionally opens an
LOC towards such borrower. The financial institution LOCs ought to stand subsumed
inside such LOCs and shouldn’t must be continued.

VIII. Case regulation evaluation

The authorized panorama surrounding LOCs has been elucidated by
a sequence of judicial interpretations. In the circumstances of Maneka Gandhi
v. UOI ⁷ and A.Ok. Gopalan v. State of Madras
⁸, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that no
particular person may be disadvantaged of their life or private liberty, as it’s
a basic proper, besides in accordance with the process of
regulation. Hence, the existence of regulation is a necessary requirement,
significantly when the LOC regime is solely ruled by the
letters, OMs, and circulars that are issued by the MHA. These
paperwork can’t be equated with the regulation as outlined beneath a.
13(3)(a) of the Constitution.

In the landmark judgement of Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the Court had laid down procedures
for the authorities to observe whereas issuing LOCs. However, the
authorized place of LOCs stays in query as their incidence has
elevated lately.

In Vikram Sharma v. UOI (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court noticed and clarified that not all statutory our bodies, akin to
the National Commission for Women, possess the authority to request
the issuance of LOCs. The courtroom emphasised that neither the CrPC
nor the Passports Act, 1967 nor the MHA round grants statutory
our bodies just like the National Commission for Women the ability to request
the opening of LOCs.

An LOC was issued with none ongoing felony investigation in
the matter of Chandran Ratnasami v. Ok.C. Palanisamy ⁹
the place the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed critical
considerations concerning the abuse of course of in issuing LOCs. Despite
the absence of any ongoing felony investigation or proceedings
towards the petitioner, an LOC was issued towards the petitioner.
The Superintendent of Police, performing because the ‘involved
authority’ on this case, directed a reinvestigation to maintain the
LOC lively.

In the case of C Jeyashekar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police
¹⁰, the Hon’ble Madras High Court noticed that
there isn’t a motive to maintain a LOC open if a chargesheet is being
filed within the ongoing case, solely to make sure the presence of the
accused.

The case of S. Martin v. Central Crime Branch ¹¹,
highlights the basic proper of the residents of India to journey
overseas. The Hon’ble Madras High Court emphasised that the correct
is a basic proper of Indian residents and reaffirmed that
Indian residents have a basic proper to journey overseas, as
protected by the Passports Act, 1967. The courtroom’s ruling
additional highlights that LOCs are coercive measures employed throughout
ongoing felony investigations, they usually should not be open-ended.
The investigating authorities are required to conclude their
investigations and file a cost sheet inside an inexpensive time
body. In this context, the Hon’ble Madras High Court
emphasised that holding an LOC lively indefinitely isn’t
justified.

In the case of Priya Parameshwaran Pillai v. UOI ¹²,
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has addressed the unjustified
issuance of LOCs, which resulted in a violation of the
petitioner’s basic rights. This case highlighted the
important abuse of the LOC issuance course of the place the petitioner
was not knowledgeable concerning the issuance of an LOC in her identify, regardless of
no ongoing investigation or felony trial warranting such motion.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court acknowledged that the
petitioner’s basic rights beneath as. 21, 19(1)(a), and
19(1)(g) of the Constitution, guaranteeing the safety of life
and liberty, freedom of speech and expression, and the correct to
observe any career or commerce, had been violated. Consequently, the
courtroom ordered the withdrawal of the LOC.

In Mushtaq Ahmed v. Deputy Commissioner of Police ¹³,
the Hon’ble Madras High Court noticed that as per the 2010 OM,
the LOCs ought to mechanically lapse after the completion of a 12 months.
If the Investigating Officer additional needs to increase the LOC or
preserve it lively, then he should renew the present LOC or challenge a
contemporary one. The LOCs can’t be perpetually maintained or prolonged
indefinitely.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court, within the case of Karti P.
Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration ¹⁴, noticed that
LOC, being an government resolution, has opposed penalties and
additional infringes upon and impairs the correct to private liberty
and freedom of motion of an individual. Therefore, the Hon’ble
Court held that the Writ Court can intrude with an LOC, however the
query of whether or not to train its discretionary jurisdiction to
intervene stays open.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court within the matter of Roshini Kapoor v.
UOI ¹⁵, criticized the ED for failing to droop the LOC
issued towards the petitioner regardless that the petitioner was
granted interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with no
particular situations aside from the situations imposed by the trial
courts. This demonstrates an abuse of energy by the investigating
businesses the place these businesses, as they tried to ignore the
interim bail order.

In the matter of Mannoj Kumar Jain v. UOI ¹⁶, the
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court noticed that the bottom used
towards the petitioners was within the financial pursuits of India, and
there isn’t a proof that if the petitioners left the nation for a
particular time frame, it should have an effect on the stated financial curiosity.
The petitioners haven’t been declared fraudsters or
money-launderers and even financial offenders. Once an LOC is issued,
it ends in dangerous penalties on the particular person’s proper to
liberty and the interference sought by the CBI has no rational
foundation. On this statement, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the
LOC issued by the financial institution towards the petitioners.

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, within the case of Farooq Ali
Khan v. Bureau of Immigration ¹⁷, noticed with the
reference of Sumer Singh Salkan (supra), Karti Chidambaram (supra)
that taking recourse of LOC towards the petitioner on his alleged
function in default of the reimbursement of the mortgage by the corporate, ought to
not violate the petitioner’s basic rights. The Court
therefore allowed the petitioner to journey to Italy and Germany topic
to his return to the nation inside 12 weeks from the beginning date of
his journey.

Recently, in Sanjay Dangi v. UOI ¹⁸, the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court stayed an LOC issued towards the petitioner till
10.07.2023 and allowed the petitioner liberty to journey on
23.06.2023 or after. This High Court got here down closely on the
petitioner and displayed displeasure for the reason that petitioner filed the
utility to hunt depart of the Court by making use of in very much less
time and pressurising the Court to resolve in haste, disrupting the
functioning of the Court. Therefore, in view of this, the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court of Bombay stayed the LOC at a value of
Rs. 50,000/- payable to St. Jude India Childcare Centre on or
earlier than 26.06.2023.

X. Conclusion

LOC is a drastic and arbitrary measure which limits an
particular person’s capability to journey or to hold on commerce. Certain
points that come up after a request to open an LOC, as accepted by
the investigating businesses, embrace arrest or detention at
immigration borders, financial loss resulting from a no-show when journey
tickets are booked, and the jeopardizing and affecting of a
particular person’s basic rights if an LOC is issued with out
following the prescribed pointers. The investigating businesses
have been issuing LOCs towards the residents, even when they aren’t
immediately concerned within the investigation. This development has additional led
to situations the place the authorities disregard Hon’ble Supreme
Court orders, as noticed in Roshini Kapoor (supra) the place the LOC
was lively regardless of reduction granted by the apex courtroom, clearly
exhibiting the unethical use of powers by the authorities.

Despite the existence of quite a few pointers and directions,
situations of unjustifiable LOC issuances based mostly on the whims of
respective authorities have surfaced. The full government
management over LOCs, vested within the MHA, has led to an escalating
sample of energy abuse. The lack of legislative provisions
underpinning LOCs has additional empowered investigating businesses to
train discretion of their issuance or opening.

The LOCs will not be supported by legislative provisions, permitting
investigating businesses to challenge or open LOCs at their discretion.
To stop the infringement of residents’ basic rights, a
concrete authorized process and mechanism must be established,
outlining the method of issuance, re-issuance, and revocation of
LOCs. The absence of legislative backing has resulted in incomplete
adjudication of the issuance course of, leaving its implementation
solely on the discretion of government authorities and has additionally
difficult the willpower of acceptable measures to handle
such abuses of energy.

Clearly, a lot reform and categorical laws is the necessity of the
hour on this delicate material. By instituting a
complete authorized framework and augmenting oversight, authorities
can strike a stability between making certain nationwide safety and
upholding residents’ rights. The way forward for LOCs ought to
prioritize equity, transparency, and strict adherence to the rule
of regulation, fostering a simply and accountable utility of this potent
device.

Footnotes

1. Office Memorandum no. 25022/13/78-FI dated
05.09.1979.

2. Vikram Sharma v. UOI, 2010 SCC OnLine Del
2475.

3. Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director & Ors.,
(2010) SCC OnLine Del 2699

4. Office Memorandum no. 25016/31/2010-Imm dated
27.10.2010.

5. Office Memorandum no. 25016/10/2017-Imm dated
19.09.2018.

6. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC
1836.

7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC
248.

8. A.Ok. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC
27.

9. Chandran Ratnasami v. Ok.C. Palanisamy and Ors., (2013)
6 SCC 740.

10. C Jeyashekar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, W.P.
25755 of 2013, order dated 11.10.2013, Madras High
Court.

11. S. Martin v. Central Crime Branch, 2014 SCC OnLine
Mad 426.

12. Priya Parameshwaran Pillai v. UOI and Ors., 2015 SCC
OnLine Del 7987.

13. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and
Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 31249.

14. Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration &
Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229.

15. Roshini Kapoor v. Union of India and Ors., 2022 SCC
OnLine Bom 3808.

16. Mannoj Kumar Jain v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine
Cal 1442.

17. Farooq Ali Khan v. Bureau of Immigration and Ors,
MANU/KA/1451/2023.

18. Sanjay Dangi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom
1260.

The content material of this text is meant to offer a normal
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation must be sought
about your particular circumstances.