Look Out Circular is unsustainable where proceedings are stayed and no risk of absconding is demonstrated.

The petitioner, a retired Brigadier of the Indian Army, challenged a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him after his retirement on 31.10.2021.

While General Court Martial (GCM) proceedings were initiated against him, they were stayed sine die by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in separate proceedings.

The petitioner sought to travel to Canada to visit his son, asserting that his wife (also a retired army officer) resides in India and that he possesses substantial movable and immovable assets within the country.

The Union of India (UOI) proposed several restrictive conditions for his travel, some of which were contested by the petitioner.

The court relied on the fundamental right to travel abroad as an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

It applied the principles from Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director and Vineet Gupta v. Union of India (2026:DHC:1616), which characterize an LOC as a coercive executive measure that must be exercised sparingly, proportionately, and subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

The court emphasized that an LOC must be periodically reviewed and cannot continue indefinitely if the subject is cooperating or if their presence is not immediately required due to stayed proceedings.

The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the LOC—securing the petitioner’s presence—was currently mitigated by the fact that the GCM proceedings remained stayed by a judicial order.

It observed that there was no "direct evidence" to suggest the petitioner intended to abscond, particularly noting his status as a pensioner with deep roots in India, including his family and assets.

Applying the "proportionality" and "necessity" tests derived from Vineet Gupta, the court found that the lack of periodic review rendered the LOC’s continuation arbitrary.

Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner’s right to travel could be balanced with the state's interests by substituting the LOC with specific, less restrictive financial and procedural conditions.

The court granted relief subject to several conditions: (i) the petitioner must deposit original title deeds of his Gurugram property with the Department; (ii) file an undertaking to appear when summoned; (iii) provide a 10-day advance itinerary before traveling; (iv) report to the Registrar of the Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., every three months; and (v) refrain from creating third-party rights on the deposited property.

The respondents were directed to intimate all relevant authorities regarding the closure of the LOC.