Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by a senior data scientist seeking the recall of a Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against him in connection with a criminal case under the POCSO Act. The petitioner, a doctorate holder from North Carolina State University, was employed as Chief Data Scientist in Bangalore and needed to travel to Paris for official work. He was stopped at the Bengaluru International Airport on 29-05-2022 due to an LOC issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (4th respondent) in Crime No. 145/2021, which arose from a complaint by his wife alleging sexual abuse of their son. The petitioner contended that the cases were false and vindictive, stemming from marital discord and related proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Guardians and Wards Act. He had been granted bail and the proceedings in the POCSO case were stayed by the High Court. Despite representations, the LOC was not recalled, prompting the writ petition seeking a mandamus. The core legal issue was whether the LOC violated the petitioner's fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether the conditions stipulated in the Union Government's Office Memorandum dated 22-02-2021 for issuance of LOCs were satisfied. The petitioner argued that his right to travel was unduly curtailed without any compelling reason, as he had cooperated with investigation, regularly attended court, and there was no likelihood of his fleeing. The State defended the LOC as a preventive measure, while the Union of India submitted that it merely executed the LOC originated by the State police. The Court analysed the legal framework for LOCs, noting that there is no specific statutory definition but the power can be traced to the Passports Act, 1967. It referred to the genesis of LOC guidelines in the Delhi High Court's decisions in Vikram Sharma v. Union of India (2010) and Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director (2010), which were adopted by the Government of India in the 2010 Office Memorandum and superseded by the consolidated guidelines of 22-02-2021. The Court extracted the conditions: an LOC can be issued only in cognizable offences where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in court despite non-bailable warrants, and there is a likelihood of leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. The Court found that in the petitioner's case, none of these conditions were satisfied. The petitioner had been promptly granted bail, was appearing before the trial court, and the proceedings were in fact stayed. There was no material to indicate any attempt to evade the process of law. The Court held that the LOC was issued mechanically, without application of mind, and in gross violation of the official memorandum. Consequently, the LOC infringed the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21. The Court rejected the respondents' arguments and directed the 4th respondent to forthwith recall the LOC and permit the petitioner to travel abroad. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Fundamental Rights - Right to Travel - Article 21 of Constitution of India - Personal Liberty - The right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 and can be restricted only by fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law; issuance of Lookout Circular without adherence to statutory or executive guidelines constitutes an unreasonable restriction - Held that the petitioner's fundamental right was infringed, and the LOC without compliance with official memorandum is illegal (Paras 9-10, 18). B) Criminal Procedure - Lookout Circular - Issuance Guidelines - Official Memorandum dated 22-02-2021, Clauses 6(F) to 6(H) - A LOC can be issued only where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in trial court despite coercive measures and there is likelihood of leaving India to evade trial/arrest - Held that no such circumstances existed; petitioner had been granted bail, was regularly attending court, and there was no material to suggest evasion; therefore, the LOC was unsustainable and must be recalled (Paras 11-14, 18). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Quashing of Lookout Circular - Courts can review the legality of a LOC and direct its recall if it is issued in violation of guidelines or fundamental rights; the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to quash a LOC that lacks legal basis - Held that the LOC was issued in gross violation of conditions, hence direction issued to recall (Paras 18-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Lookout Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.145/2021 is sustainable in law and whether the petitioner is entitled to its recall, given the conditions under the Official Memorandum dated 22-02-2021 and the fundamental right to travel.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The High Court directed the 4th respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru South Division) to forthwith recall the Lookout Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.145/2021 and permit him to travel abroad. The Court held that the LOC was issued in gross violation of the conditions stipulated in the Official Memorandum dated 22-02-2021 and infringed the petitioner's fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Right to travel is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21
- Issuance of LOC must strictly follow conditions in Official Memorandum dated 22-02-2021
- LOC cannot be issued mechanically or without satisfaction of conditions
- Investigating agency must demonstrate likelihood of accused evading arrest or trial
- Article 21 violation if LOC issued without compelling reasons
