Right to Travel Abroad Is Fundamental; LOCs Are Coercive Measures of Last Resort Requiring Statutory Anchors.

This judgment consists of a batch of eight writ petitions challenging the issuance and continuation of Look Out Circulars (LOCs). The petitioners were categorized into three groups: (A) those facing LOCs issued at the behest of Public Sector Banks (e.g., M. Thiagarajan); (B) those facing LOCs from investigating agencies/ministries such as the SFIO or IT Department (e.g., Shivani Modi, Atul Punj); and (C) those relegated to the originating forum due to specific procedural requirements

Most petitioners had previously been granted several court-sanctioned foreign trips and had returned to India, demonstrating compliance with legal processes

In several cases, investigations had concluded without the filing of a chargesheet or the discovery of fraud

1. Whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 and the conditions under which executive instructions can restrict it

2. Whether Public Sector Banks possess the legal authority to request the issuance of an LOC following the quashing of Clause 6(B)(xv) of the 2021 OM

3. Whether the continuation of an LOC is justified when a person has cooperated with investigations and does not pose a flight risk

The court primarily applied Article 21 of the Constitution, establishing the right to travel abroad as an integral facet of personal liberty

It relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which mandates that any deprivation of liberty must follow a fair, just, and reasonable procedure

It followed Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, which struck down the power of bank officials to request LOCs

Furthermore, it applied the 10 governing principles distilled in Ritu Singal v. Bureau of Immigration, emphasizing that LOCs are coercive measures of last resort, to be used only in cognizable offences where an accused is deliberately evading arrest

The court applied the "tripartite test" to determine if the restrictions were procedurally just and founded on law

Regarding Category A, the court held that since the specific clause empowering bank chairmen to request LOCs was quashed, such LOCs lacked legal character

Regarding Category B, the court found that several petitioners (e.g., Shivani Modi, Atul Punj) had demonstrated their bona fides by traveling abroad 10 and 5 times respectively under court orders and returning to India

The court reasoned that since investigations were either stagnant, concluded without findings of fraud, or the petitioners were not named as accused in cognizable offences, the "exceptional circumstances" (detrimental to economic interests) under the 2021 OM were not met

The court underscored that "guilt is personal and not vicarious," and past associations with defaulting companies cannot justify indefinite travel restrictions

The petitioners are permitted to travel abroad without prior court permission, subject to notifying the concerned agencies 48 hours in advance

In the case of Amrit Dujari (Category C), the court relegated the petitioner to the competent trial court having jurisdiction over the underlying matter

The court held that the burden of justifying an LOC lies squarely on the state, and in the absence of a flight risk or a pending cognizable offence, the restriction on the fundamental right to travel is unconstitutional