SHIVANI MODI v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The present petitions have been listed before this Court for disposal on a common day. All of them assail the issuance and continuation of Look Out Circulars (hereinafter “LOCs”), operating either at the behest of public sector financial institutions (Banks) or at the instance of investigating agencies and statutory bodies.

2. The issues that arise for determination in these petitions are not unfamiliar; this Court has had occasion to deal with them at considerable length and depth in a preceding batch judgment, Ritu Singal v. Bureau of Immigration &Ors.1, decided on 17.04.2026, disposing of 33 writ petitions (hereinafter “Preceding Judgment”). The present judgment must, therefore, be read and understood as a companion and continuation of that batch, forming together a consistent and coherent judicial statement on the law governing LOCs.

3. In the Preceding Judgment, after a comprehensive survey of constitutional provisions, regulatory instruments, and the full arc of judicial authority from this Court as well as from sister High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, this Court distilled ten governing principles that 12026:DHC:3806. Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:22.05.2026 18:06:34 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV now constitute the operative legal framework for the issuance, continuance, and judicial review of LOCs.

4. In particular, this Court held, inter alia: that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution; that an LOC is a coercive measure of last resort and not a routine instrument of law enforcement or debt recovery; that public sector banks, through their Chairman, Managing Directors, or Chief Executive Officers, do not possess legal authority to seek the issuance of an LOC following the decisions in Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India and the judgments of this Court following it; and that the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must be periodically reviewed.

5. These writ petitions have been categorised into three broad classes for the purposes of discussion, analysis, and disposal, namely: Category A — cases where the Look Out Circular has been issued solely at the instance of financial institutions; Category B — cases where the Look Out Circular has been issued at the instance of ministries and investigating agencies; and Category C — cases where petitioner is relegated to the forum that issued LOC. Each category raises distinct, though interrelated, legal issues which shall be addressed in the appropriate sequence in this judgment.

6. At the outset, it must be recorded that the principles laid down in the Preceding Judgment are taken as settled and shall not be departed from. The present judgment proceeds on the foundation already laid. What this Court is called upon to do in these eight petitions is to apply those principles to individual facts which, the respondents contend, make out a positive case for sustaining the LOC. Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:22.05.2026 18:06:34 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

7. In the Preceding Judgment, the LOCs were quashed across the board because the originating agencies failed entirely to discharge the burden placed upon them to justify necessity, proportionality, and legality.

8. Before proceeding to the analysis of individual petitions, it is appropriate to revisit and further elaborate legal framework, incorporating subsequent developments in domestic jurisprudence and drawing upon comparative constitutional law from other jurisdictions. This Court does so not because the principles stated therein require revision, but because, in the view of this Court, a more expansive articulation of the legal foundations will serve clarity and assist in the systematic adjudication of the categories of cases that now regularly come before this Court. B. THE LAW OF LOCs

9. The Constitution of India guarantees to every person the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. As long settled since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2, the scope of personal liberty is not to be construed narrowly; it encompasses the full range of rights that make life meaningful and dignified.

10. The right to travel abroad has been conclusively recognized as an integral component of personal liberty under Article 21. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer3, the Supreme Court held that a passport, cannot be withheld arbitrarily or without