Look-out circulars issued by public sector banks are unsustainable and violate fundamental rights under Article 21.

The petitioner, Ashish Garg, filed multiple writ petitions challenging Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against him at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), various Public Sector Banks (State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, and Punjab National Bank), and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Previously, a Special CBI Court set aside the LOCs issued by the CBI on 31.08.2024.

In February 2025, despite court-granted liberty to travel to Dubai, the petitioner was stopped at the airport due to an LOC issued by the ED, prompting the filing of the third petition.

The petitioner sought the quashing of all remaining LOCs, undertaking to cooperate with ongoing investigations.

Whether the LOCs issued at the instance of Public Sector Banks are legally sustainable.

Whether the continued operation of an LOC issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is justified when the subject is cooperating with the investigation.

The court primarily applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty.

It relied on the landmark precedent in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* regarding the fundamental right to travel.

It relied on *Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asst. Director* regarding the conditions for issuing LOCs.

Furthermore, it applied the principles established in *Vineet Gupta v. Union of India* [2026:DHC:1616], which held that LOCs issued by Public Sector Banks cannot be sustained and must be quashed.

The principles established in *Vineet Gupta v. Union of India* [2026:DHC:1616] held that the power to issue LOCs must be exercised sparingly and only when a "grave threat" to national or economic interests exists.

The court reasoned that an LOC is a "coercive executive measure" that must withstand judicial scrutiny on factors of necessity, proportionality, and due process.

Regarding the banks, the court found the LOCs "wholly unsustainable" based on current legal precedents that prohibit Public Sector Banks from originating such circulars.

Regarding the ED's LOC, the court observed that there was no evidence of non-cooperation by the petitioner.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court determined that the purpose of the LOC had been "sufficiently served" and that its continued operation would constitute an unreasonable restriction on liberty, provided certain safeguards were in place to ensure the petitioner's presence during the investigation.

The quashing of the ED's LOC was made subject to three conditions: (i) the petitioner must file an affidavit within 30 days undertaking to cooperate and appear before the ED as summoned; (ii) he must produce all relevant documents in his possession; and (iii) he must not travel abroad without specific permission from the Investigation Agency.

Liberty was reserved for the ED to reissue the LOC if the petitioner breaches these conditions.