Look Out Circulars

Look Out Circulars: A Comprehensive Guide

Look Out Circulars (LOCs) is a legal instrument utilized by law enforcement agencies in  India to monitor and control the movement of individuals, particularly those suspected of  criminal activity. In this blog, we will delve into the intricacies of LOCs, examining their  purpose, issuance process, legal implications, and recent developments.

What are Look Out Circulars?

An LOC is a formal document issued by law enforcement authorities to immigration officials,  instructing them to prevent a specified individual from leaving or entering the country. It  serves as a preventive measure, enabling authorities to track and apprehend individuals who  are evading legal proceedings or suspected of involvement in criminal activities.

Issuance of Look Out Circulars

The power to issue LOCs rests with various law enforcement agencies, including the police,  the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). These  agencies can request the issuance of an LOC based on reasonable suspicion or credible  information suggesting an individual's involvement in criminal activities or their intent to flee  the country.

Legal Framework Governing Look Out Circulars (LOCs)

Look Out Circulars (LOCs) in India are not governed by a single statute but are issued under  various legal provisions depending on the nature of the case. The authority to issue LOCs is  derived from administrative guidelines, judicial interpretations, and specific provisions of  different laws.

1. Passports Act, 1967

• Section 10: Grants the government power to impound or revoke a passport if it is in the interest of national security, sovereignty, or public interest.
• Section 10A: Allows the government to suspend a passport in case of an emergency.
• Relevance to LOCs: LOCs can be issued against individuals whose passports have been revoked or are under scrutiny under this Act.

2. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973

• Section 41: Empowers police officers to arrest individuals without a warrant under certain circumstances, including cases where there is a risk of absconding.
• Section 144B: Empowers district magistrates and commissioners to issue directions restricting movement.
• Section 482: Grants High Courts the power to quash arbitrary LOCs if they violate fundamental rights.
• Relevance to LOCs: LOCs are often issued to prevent accused persons from fleeing during an ongoing investigation or trial.

3. Foreigners Act, 1946

• Section 3: Gives the government power to regulate the entry, departure, and movement of foreigners in India.
• Relevance to LOCs: Used in cases involving foreign nationals, illegal immigrants, or individuals with visa violations.

4. Immigration Act, 1983

• Section 22: Grants the Bureau of Immigration (BOI) the power to restrict the movement of individuals entering or leaving India.
• Relevance to LOCs: This law forms the basis for immigration authorities enforcing LOCs at airports and borders.

5. Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002

• Section 3 & 4: Deals with money laundering offenses, allowing authorities like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to restrict the travel of suspects.
• Relevance to LOCs: LOCs are often issued in cases of economic offenses, fraud, and financial crimes.

6. Extradition Act, 1962

• Section 6 & 7: Provides mechanisms to detain individuals who are wanted for crimes in other countries.
• Relevance to LOCs: Used in extradition cases, where India is coordinating with foreign governments to track fugitives.

7. Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, 2003

• Section 8: Empowers the CVC to take action against corruption and financial fraud.
• Relevance to LOCs: LOCs are frequently issued in corruption-related cases involving government officials.

8. Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018

• Section 2(f): Defines a “fugitive economic offender” as someone who has left India to avoid legal proceedings in cases of economic fraud.
• Section 10: Allows the government to seize assets of fugitive offenders.
• Relevance to LOCs: Authorities issue LOCs to prevent economic offenders from fleeing before their prosecution.

Who Can Request an LOC?

Several law enforcement agencies can request the issuance of an LOC, including the police,  the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Income Tax  Department and other agencies involved in criminal investigations. In some cases, even  public sector banks can request LOCs against individuals who have defaulted on large loans.

Grounds for Issuing an LOC

An LOC can be issued on various grounds, including:

• The person is accused of a cognizable offense and there is a likelihood of them leaving the country to evade arrest or trial.
• The person is involved in economic offenses and there is a risk of them fleeing the country to avoid legal proceedings.
• The person is required to appear in court as a witness or accused and there is apprehension that they may not appear if allowed to leave the country.

Legal Implications of Look Out Circulars

LOCs carry significant legal weight, as they can restrict an individual's fundamental right to  freedom of movement. However, the issuance of an LOC must adhere to certain legal  safeguards to prevent misuse. The Supreme Court of India has emphasized the need for clear  guidelines and procedures to ensure that LOCs are issued judiciously and only in cases where  there is a genuine threat of the individual absconding.

Recent Developments and Judicial Pronouncements

The use of LOCs has been subject to scrutiny and debate in recent years. There have been  concerns about the potential for misuse of LOCS, particularly in cases involving economic  offenses. The courts have also played a role in shaping the legal framework for LOCs through  various pronouncements.

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court held that public sector banks cannot request the  issuance of LOCs against loan defaulters. The court observed that LOCs are coercive

measures that can restrict a person's fundamental right to travel and should not  be used lightly.

Recent Judicial Interpretations:

1. Delhi High Court on Bank-Issued LOCs (July 12, 2024): In Shyam Garg and Anr vs Union Of India And Anrs, the Delhi High Court quashed LOCs issued at the behest of Bank of Baroda against individuals who had defaulted on loans. The court emphasized that mere  inability to repay bank loans cannot justify the issuance of an LOC, especially in the absence  of any criminal proceedings within India. The court highlighted that the right to travel abroad  is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed  arbitrarily. 
2. Bombay High Court on Detention Based on LOCs (September 21, 2024): The Bombay High Court declared the arrest of a Singapore resident, based on an LOC, as illegal. The court observed that detention solely on the basis of an LOC amounts to arrest and violates  fundamental rights, especially when due process is not followed. 
3. Delhi Court Directs Suspension of LOC by Enforcement Directorate (December 19, 2024): A Delhi court directed the Enforcement Directorate to suspend an LOC against Dinesh Arora, an accused-turned-approver in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise  policy. The court recognized the fundamental right to travel abroad and noted that Arora had  previously complied with court conditions during his travels.

Key Takeaways:

• LOCs and Fundamental Rights: Indian courts have consistently held that the issuance of an LOC should not infringe upon an individual’s fundamental rights, particularly the right to travel abroad, unless there are compelling reasons.
• LOCs in Loan Default Cases: The judiciary has clarified that LOCs should not be used as a tool for debt recovery. Mere default in loan repayment, without any criminal proceedings or evidence of intent to abscond, does not warrant the issuance of an LOC.
• Due Process and Justification: Authorities must provide substantial justification for the issuance of an LOC. Vague apprehensions or unsubstantiated suspicions are insufficient grounds for restricting an individual’s movement.

These judicial pronouncements underscore the importance of balancing the state’s interest in  law enforcement with the protection of individual liberties. The courts have reiterated that  LOCs should be issued sparingly and with adequate justification to prevent misuse.

Cases Where a Look Out Circular (LOC) Cannot Be Issued

While Look Out Circulars (LOCs) serve as a preventive measure to restrict individuals from  leaving the country, courts have ruled that they cannot be issued arbitrarily. LOCs must be  backed by legal justification, and certain cases do not warrant their issuance. Below are key  situations where an LOC cannot be issued: zegarki repliki

1. Purely Civil Disputes ( No Criminal Allegations )

• Judicial Precedent: Vikram Sharma v. Union of India (2022) – Delhi High Court ruled that LOCs cannot be issued in purely civil cases, such as contractual disputes, business disagreements, or property matters.
• Reason: LOCs are intended for criminal and national security matters, not personal disputes.

Example Where LOC Can’t Be Issued: A landlord-tenant dispute over unpaid rent. 2. Marital and Family Disputes Without Criminal Charges

• Judicial Precedent: Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director (2010) – LOCs should not be used as pressure tactics in divorce, maintenance, or custody cases, unless there is a proven criminal offense.
• Reason: Family disputes do not automatically make a person a flight risk.

Example Where LOC Can’t Be Issued: A husband and wife are in a divorce battle, and  one spouse wants to travel abroad for work.

3. Financial or Loan Defaults (Without Criminal Case)

• Judicial Precedent: Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967) – Supreme Court ruled that debt recovery alone is not a valid ground for restricting travel.
• Reason: Non-repayment of loans does not make someone a criminal unless there is a case of fraud, cheating, or misrepresentation.

Example Where LOC Can’t Be Issued: A businessman defaults on a bank loan but has no  criminal fraud case against him.

When LOC Can Be Issued: If fraud is involved, such as Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya  cases, where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued LOCs due to money laundering  charges.

4. Cases Where No FIR or Criminal Investigation Exists

• Judicial Precedent: Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration (2018) – Delhi High Court ruled that LOCs cannot be issued just because someone is under “suspicion”.
• Reason: There must be an active FIR, investigation, or pending court case before an LOC can be issued.

Example Where LOC Can’t Be Issued: A person is being “looked into” by authorities but  has no formal charges against them.

5. Issuance by Unauthorized Persons

• Judicial Precedent: Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director (2010) – The Delhi High Court ruled that only specific authorities, such as CBI, ED, Income Tax Department, and State Police Chiefs, can request an LOC.
• Reason: LOCs cannot be issued by private individuals or unauthorized officers.

Example Where LOC Can’t Be Issued: A company requests an LOC against a former  employee over a contractual breach.

6. Cases Where Fundamental Rights Would Be Violated

• Judicial Precedent: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Supreme Court ruled that freedom of movement is a fundamental right, and any travel restriction must be reasonable and justifiable.
• Reason: Arbitrary issuance of LOCs violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and Article 19 (Right to Movement).

Example Where LOC Can’t Be Issued: A journalist critical of the government wants to  travel abroad, but no criminal case is filed against them.

Landmark judgements 

1. Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration (2018)

Court: Delhi High Court

Key Ruling:

The court quashed the LOC issued against Karti Chidambaram, son of former Finance  Minister P. Chidambaram, in a case related to foreign remittances.

The court found that merely being under investigation does not automatically justify an LOC.

The ruling emphasized that LOCs should only be issued when there is an actual risk of  fleeing the country.

Impact: This case reinforced that authorities cannot misuse LOCs as a blanket restriction  against individuals under investigation.

2. Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (2019)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Key Ruling:

The Supreme Court upheld an LOC issued against an IPS officer facing disciplinary  proceedings.

The ruling clarified that LOCs are not limited to criminal cases-they can also be issued in  departmental or disciplinary cases.

The court highlighted that an LOC is valid if it serves public interest and ensures cooperation  with investigations.

Impact: This case broadened the scope of LOCs beyond criminal law and affirmed that they  can be used in service law matters.

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Key Ruling:

This is one of the most important constitutional cases in India, dealing with the right to travel  abroad.

The Supreme Court held that the right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right  to Life & Personal Liberty).

Any restriction on travel, including an LOC, must be reasonable, just, and backed by law.

Impact: This case is often cited in LOC disputes, as it establishes that arbitrary travel  restrictions violate fundamental rights.

4. Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra (2008)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Key Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that preventive restrictions, including LOCs, must be proportionate  and not infringe upon fundamental rights unnecessarily.

The authorities must have a valid and defensible reason for issuing an LOC.

Impact: This case strengthened judicial oversight over travel restrictions, ensuring that they  are not imposed arbitrarily.

5. Vikram Sharma v. Union of India (2022)

Court: Delhi High Court

Key Ruling: The High Court quashed an LOC issued in a private dispute related to marriage  and domestic issues.

The court ruled that LOCs should not be used as a pressure tactic in civil disputes.

The investigating agency must prove that the person is actually a flight risk before issuing an  LOC.

Impact: This judgment reinforced that not all cases warrant an LOC, especially in civil  or family matters.

Conclusion

Look Out Circulars are a powerful tool for law enforcement agencies, but they must be  wielded responsibly and within the bounds of the law. Striking a balance between national  security and individual rights is crucial to ensure that LOCs are used effectively while  upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

By Manmeet Kaur

4^th Year, B.A. LL.B

Ideal Institute Of Management And Technology (Affiliated to GGSIP University, New Delhi)