The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty, and a look out circular is a serious intrusion into it. In Deep Kumar Rastogi v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., W.P.(C) 10167/2026 with W.P.(C) 12988/2026 (2026:DHC:8584), decided on 28 September 2026, the Delhi High Court quashed LOCs issued against two petitioners under investigation in a money-laundering case traced to a 2017 SFIO complaint, holding that an LOC is a coercive measure which cannot be sustained merely because an investigation remains pending.
The facts that troubled the court
The underlying case began with a complaint by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office in 2017, followed by an ECIR under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. For roughly six years the agency’s engagement with the petitioners was minimal. Fresh summons came in December 2025; the petitioners appeared and answered them. What they did not know was that look out circulars stood against their names — a fact that surfaced only when the elder petitioner, undergoing treatment for liver cancer, tried to travel. Justice Amit Mahajan found that sequence impossible to reconcile with the premise of an LOC: a targeted measure against persons likely to evade the process of law.
The principle restated
The judgment puts the test plainly: an LOC is a coercive measure and cannot be resorted to as a matter of routine merely because an investigation is pending. The issuing agency must be able to point to circumstances specific to the person — flight risk, defiance of summons, concealment — and those circumstances must exist when the LOC is issued and continue to exist while it operates. An LOC is not a convenience to be left standing indefinitely in official records.
Conditions in place of a blanket bar
| Instead of the LOC | The court ordered |
|---|---|
| Border detention and travel prohibition | Advance disclosure of complete itinerary to the agency before each trip |
| Uncertainty about whereabouts | Accommodation addresses, contact numbers and a monitored e-mail on record |
| Risk of non-return | Notification upon return within the stipulated time; continued cooperation with the investigation |
Practice pointer: persons who suspect an LOC — a common discovery at immigration counters — should obtain their travel records, assemble proof of every appearance and reply to the agency, and move a writ petition annexing that cooperation record. Courts respond to a documented pattern of compliance far more readily than to assertions of innocence on the merits, which remain irrelevant at this stage.
The wider context
Delhi High Court decisions over recent years have steadily narrowed the space for open-ended LOCs in economic-offence investigations, insisting on periodic review and specific justification. This judgment continues that line and adds a humane edge: where the person restrained needs to travel for medical treatment and the record shows cooperation rather than evasion, the balance tilts decisively toward liberty, protected by disclosure conditions rather than a border bar.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a look out circular?
An administrative communication, issued at the request of an investigating agency through the Bureau of Immigration, which can prevent a person from leaving or require interception at the border. It is not founded on any statute specific to it, which is why courts insist that its use remain exceptional and justified.
Why were these LOCs quashed?
The investigation dated back years, the agency had made minimal contact for long stretches, and when fresh summons were issued the petitioners appeared and cooperated. The petitioners discovered the LOCs only when one of them, suffering from serious illness, attempted to travel for medical treatment. With no demonstrated flight risk and no non-cooperation, the LOCs lacked the specific justification the law demands.
Did the petitioners get unconditional freedom to travel?
No. The court balanced liberty with the investigation’s needs: the petitioners must give the agency their travel itinerary — flights, duration, destinations, accommodation and contact details — before travelling, notify their return, remain reachable on a disclosed e-mail, and continue cooperating with the investigation.
Can an LOC be challenged while an investigation is still open?
Yes. A writ petition before the High Court is the standard remedy. The question is not whether the investigation is pending but whether the agency can show material indicating flight risk, evasion of process or non-cooperation attributable to the person concerned.