LOCs issued by Public Sector Banks or without subsisting criminal proceedings violate Article 21.

The High Court dealt with a batch of eight writ petitions challenging the issuance and continuation of Look Out Circulars (LOCs).

These LOCs were issued either at the behest of Public Sector Banks for debt recovery or by investigating agencies (CBI, SFIO, Income Tax Dept, MCA) based on pending investigations or "economic interest".

In several instances, petitioners had consistently returned to India after court-sanctioned travels, demonstrating they were not flight risks.

1. Whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and if Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued via executive instructions satisfy the "procedure established by law" under Article 21.

2. Whether Public Sector Banks hold the legal authority to request the issuance of LOCs following the striking down of Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM.

3. Whether "economic interest" and "larger public interest" can be invoked to restrain travel in cases of routine loan defaults or where no cognizable offence is established.

Article 21 of the Constitution, establishing the right to travel abroad as an integral facet of personal liberty.

The 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the MHA, noting that LOCs are coercive measures of last resort reserved for cognizable offences or exceptional cases detrimental to national sovereignty/economic interest.

Striking down of Bank-issued LOCs based on Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India.

The ten governing principles distilled in its previous judgment, Ritu Singal v. Bureau of Immigration.

The court applied the "tripartite test" (legality, fairness, and non-violation of other rights) to the impugned actions.

Regarding Category A (Banks), the court held that bank officials lack the legal competence to seek LOCs, especially when defaults are limited to commercial failures without proven siphoning or personal guarantees.

For Category B (Investigating Agencies), the court analyzed the petitioners' conduct, noting that where individuals cooperated with the SFIO or Income Tax authorities and returned to India after temporary travel permissions, the "flight risk" justification vanished.

The court found that maintaining LOCs indefinitely without a charge sheet or specific evidence of evading arrest violates the principle of proportionality and the requirement for periodic review.

Finally, it determined that if a petitioner's LOC was issued via a court order or during active criminal trial, the writ court must relegate the party to the trial court for relief.

Petitioners were permitted to travel subject to notifying the agencies 48 hours in advance.

One petitioner (Category C) was relegated to the trial court to seek modification/cancellation of the LOC as the matter was already seized by a competent forum.

The burden of proof to justify the necessity and legality of an LOC lies squarely on the State, which it failed to discharge in these instances.