Facts
The Petitioner, Ashish Garg, filed multiple writ petitions challenging Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against him by various authorities, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and three public sector banks (SBI, BoB, and PNB)
Source reference: p. 1-2The LOCs issued at the instance of the CBI were previously set aside by a Special Court order dated 31.08.2024
Source reference: p. 2Despite being granted judicial permission to travel to Dubai in February 2025, the Petitioner was detained at the airport due to an LOC originating from the ED, which led to the filing of W.P.(C) 2565/2025
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioner sought to quash the remaining LOCs, contending they were arbitrary and interfered with his fundamental right to travel.
Source reference: no citationIssues
Whether LOCs issued at the instance of Public Sector Banks are legally sustainable under the current legal framework.
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 4(iv)Whether the continued operation of an LOC by the Enforcement Directorate is justified when the subject is cooperating with the investigation.
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 5-6Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the fundamental right to travel as an integral part of personal liberty
Source reference: p. 2-3It relied on the principles established in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* regarding personal liberty
Source reference: p. 3and *Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director* regarding the requirements for issuing and challenging LOCs
Source reference: p. 3-4Furthermore, the court applied the recent precedent in *Vineet Gupta v. Union of India (2026:DHC:1616)*, which held that LOCs issued by Chairmen or CEOs of Public Sector Banks cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and that the power to issue LOCs must be exercised sparingly and only in rare, compelling cases involving national interests or grave economic threats
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The court reasoned that an LOC is a coercive executive measure that must be proportionate, necessary, and subject to strict judicial scrutiny
Source reference: p. 3Regarding the banks, the court followed the specific finding in *Vineet Gupta* that Public Sector Banks lack the authority to sustain such circulars, leading to the summary setting aside of the LOCs issued by SBI, Bank of Baroda, and PNB
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4(iv); p. 4, para. 5Regarding the ED, the court observed that there was no evidence on record to suggest the Petitioner was non-cooperative
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Since the Petitioner undertook to cooperate with both the investigation and the trial, and offered to furnish an affidavit to that effect, the court determined that the purpose of the LOC had been sufficiently served and its continued operation would be an unjustified restriction on liberty
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6Holding
The Court quashed the LOCs issued by the respondent banks and the Enforcement Directorate
It held that LOCs issued by Public Sector Banks are "wholly unsustainable"
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5The quashing of the ED's LOC was made subject to three conditions: (i) the Petitioner must file an affidavit within 30 days promising cooperation with the investigation; (ii) he must produce all requested documents in his possession; and (iii) he must seek specific permission from the investigative agency before traveling abroad
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6The court reserved liberty for the ED to reissue the LOC should the Petitioner breach these undertakings
Source reference: p. 5, para. 7Original Court PDF
Ashish Garg v. State Bank of India & Ors. [2026:DHC:1616]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in