Neena Mittal & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court
Case type
Writ Petition Civil
Decided on
25-02-2026

$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11611/2024, CM APPLs.48216-18/2024, 29558/2025 &
67754/2025

Date of Decision : 25.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

NEENA MITTAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari with Mr. Amit
Dhall and Mr. Rajat Srivastava,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms Sunanda Shukla with Ms Maanya
Saxena, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP for
CBI.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. It appears that at the instance of banks the LOCs were opened against
the petitioners. The Court in the case of Vineet Gupta v. Union of India &
Ors. vide its judgment dated 10.02.2026 in WP(C) 7850/2025 has held as
under:

“28. On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
18:55:17
W.P.(C) 11611/2024 Page 1 of 4

it is seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the
issuance, continuance, and judicial review of LOC:

(i) LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a
substantial impact on the fundamental right to travel, which
forms an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the power to issue an LOC must be exercised
sparingly, strictly in accordance with law, and only upon
satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under the governing
Office Memoranda;
(ii) An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable
offence under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible
material demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately
evading arrest or judicial process, or that there exists a real and
proximate likelihood of absconding;
(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the
Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly
construed and may be exercised only in rare and compelling
cases, where, the proposed departure of subject poses a clear
and grave threat to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of
India, or to its strategic or economic interests in a national or
systemic sense, or the larger public interest;

(iv) An LOC issued at the instance of Chairman, Managing
Director, or Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks,
would not withstand the scrutiny of law and judicial review.
Thus, as of now, the LOC issued to Public Sector Banks cannot
be sustained and are liable to be quashed;
(v) Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are duty-bound to
subject the issuance and continuation of LOCs to strict scrutiny,
balancing the legitimate interests of the State with the
individual’s fundamental rights, and to quash such circulars
where the restraint imposed is found to be arbitrary,
disproportionate, lacking in statutory backing, or violative of
the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process.
Ultimately, the burden lies squarely upon the “originating
agencies” to justify, the necessity, proportionality, and legality
of the restraint, failing which such action cannot be sustained.
Pertinent to observe that the continuance of an LOC is not
indefinite and must be periodically reviewed. Where it is evident
from the record that the subject has cooperated with the
investigation, has not evaded the process of law, and where no
further interrogation or presence is demonstrably required, the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
18:55:17
W.P.(C) 11611/2024 Page 2 of 4

continued operation of an LOC would amount to an
unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty;

(vi) However, it is also to be emphasised herein that the Writ
Court is not the exclusive grievance redressal mechanism
available to a person against whom a LOC has been issued. As
held in Sumer Singh Salkan, a person against whom a LOC is
issued is, in the first instance, required to join the investigation
or surrender before the jurisdictional Court, or otherwise satisfy
the Court that the LOC is unwarranted. The individual may also
approach the authority which ordered issuance of the LOC and
seek its withdrawal on the grounds of illegality or non-
application of mind. An LOC may be withdrawn by the
originating authority and may also be rescinded or modified by
the trial Court or the Court having jurisdiction over the
concerned police station, upon an appropriate application.”

2. It has been clearly held that an LOC issued at the instance of
Chairman Managing Director or Chief Executive Officer of the public sector
banks would not stand on the scrutiny of law and judicial review. Thus, the
LOCs issued at the instance of the banks are unsustainable in law and are
hereby set aside.
3. So far as the LOCs issued at the instance of the CBI is concerned, this
Court in the case of Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director & Ors., 2010
SCC OnLine Del 2699 has held that the individual may approach the
authority which ordered issuance of LOC and seeks its withdrawal on the
ground of legality or non-application of mind. It has also been held that an
LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority and may also be
decided or modify by trial court or the court having jurisdiction over the
concerned police station upon an appropriate application. The petitioners
submit that they had fully cooperated with the investigation being carried
out by the CBI. Even as per the reply filed by the CBI, it appears that only
against petitioner no.2 the charge-sheet has been filed and no LOC was
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
18:55:17
W.P.(C) 11611/2024 Page 3 of 4

opened against petitioner no.1.
4. Be that as it may, the petitioner no.2, if is agreed by the issuance of
the LOC by the CBI, shall be at liberty to approach the concerned Court for
its cancellation in view of the change of circumstances.
5. Granting that liberty, the instant petition stands disposed of. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.


PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
Tr/ap

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
18:55:17
W.P.(C) 11611/2024 Page 4 of 4