The Supreme Court on April 21 called on the Central Bureau of Investigation to come up with a Standard Operating Procedure regarding issuance of Look-Out Circulars against accused persons. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the CBI over the stopping of an accused - the petitioner - at the airport, due to a Look- Out Circular opened against him, despite...
The Supreme Court on April 21 called on the Central Bureau of Investigation to come up with a Standard Operating Procedure regarding issuance of Look-Out Circulars against accused persons. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta questioned the CBI over the stopping of an accused - the petitioner - at the airport, due to a Look- Out Circular opened against him, despite the jurisdictional Court having granted permission to travel abroad.[1]
What is a Look Out Circular? Which agencies can issue it and against whom? Do Courts and Statutes provide any remedy against them and what are the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court recently? Read the article for a comprehensive breakdown of the same.
1. Look Out Circular
A Look-Out Circular is essentially an administrative mechanism whereby certain designated authorities are permitted to issue requests to the immigration/emigration authorities to monitor and control the movement of individuals. An LOC can be said to be a coercive measure adopted by the State to restrict and regulate the physical movement of an individual.
Who are they issued against?
They are issued against citizens, freeing nationals, or foreign nationals who have pending cases filed against them in relation to serious, cognizable offences or an investigation that requires their presence. It works against relevant individuals arriving or departing India at various points such as airports, seaports, and land borders. The issuance of an LOC can have significant implications for the individual named, including restrictions on travel, potential detention, and legal proceedings.
Who issues LOC?
LOC's can be issued by coordination between multiple government agencies, including the police, intelligence agencies such as the CBI as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs and Bureau of Immigration (“BOI”). The process is initiated based on a request from an 'originating/requesting' agency such as the Superintendent of Police to the BOI to issue an LOC against an individual in case certain specific criteria or why such a notice is being issued against the respective individual.
Some of the agencies who can issue LOC's are -
- Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
- Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)
- District Magistrate
- Superintendent of Police
- Central Bureau of Investigation
- Narcotics Control Bureau
- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
- Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
- Intelligence Bureau
- National Investigation Agency (NIA)
- Customs and Income Tax Departments, etc.
2. Framework and Statutory Authorities
Guidelines for the issuance of LOCs have been prescribed through Office Memorandums (“OM(s)”) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (“MoHA”), from time to time. These OMs invariably set-out the circumstances in which an LOC may be issued, designate certain authorities as being permitted to request for the issuance of an LOC and provide the procedure by way of which an LOC may be issued by the immigration/emigration authorities.
The Ministry of Home Affairs first set out the guidelines for issuing LOCs via its Letter dated September 5, 1979 (25022/13/78-F.I). After that, the guidelines were further refined and superseded by another office memorandum issued by the MHA dated December 27, 2000 (25022/20/98/F.IV). As per the 2000 OM, the request must be “with the approval of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary Government of India/Joint Secretary in State Government/Concerned Superintendent of Police at district level.” [2]
Subsequently, in 2010, pursuant to the decision of Vikram Sharma & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors,[3] the MoHA issued the OM of 27 October 2010 (“2010 OM”) which provided a comprehensive framework for the issuance, enforcement, and cancellation of LOCs. Some of the important guidelines under this OM are summarized below:
Issuance Criteria: LOCs can be issued for individuals involved in cognizable offenses under the IPC or other penal laws. The guidelines specify the conditions under which an LOC can be initiated, ensuring that it is based on substantial evidence and justified reasons.
Exceptional Circumstances for Issuance: The LOCs may also be issued in exceptional cases without complete parameters/case details against CI suspects, terrorists, anti-national elements etc. in the larger national interest.
- Authorized Originating Agencies: The guidelines stipulate thirteen officers from various originating agencies who are authorized to request for issuance of an LOC. Furthermore, LOCs may also be issued as per the directions of any Criminal Court of India. It is stated that other statutory bodies such as National Commission for Women, National Human Rights Commission may place a request before the relevant law enforcement agencies, who will assess the request and then issue a request for opening an LOC, in terms of the OM.
- Legal Liability: Legal liability of action taken by the immigration authorities in pursuance of the LOC rests with the originating agency.
- Cancellation and Review: The LOC will be valid for a period of one year from the date of issue and name of the subject shall be automatically removed from the LOC thereafter unless the originating agency requests for its renewal within a period of one year.
3. Case Laws and Matter at hand
In Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India & Anr.[4] the Bombay High Court provided extensive analysis regarding the constitutionality of the provision in the OM which enables PSB's to request for an LOC to be issued. The Court inter alia held that the OMs are merely executive actions and neither constitute law as per Article 13 of the Constitution of India nor procedure established by law as stipulated under Article 12 of the Constitution. Furthermore the Court held that the OMs cannot sustain if they are violative of fundamental rights or are not in conformity with the requirements of procedural fairness.
In the case of Rana Ayyub v Union of India & Anr,[5] the Hon'ble Delhi High Court set aside the LOC issued against the Petitioner as being devoid of merits as well as for infringing the human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to exercise her freedom of speech and expression. The Hon'ble Court held that a balance has to be struck qua the right of the investigation agency to investigate the matter as well as the fundamental right of the petitioner of movement and free speech.
In the case of Karti P Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration,[6] the Hon'ble Madras High Court set aside the LOC issued against the petitioner after holding that the LOC was issued in hot haste and even the conditions precedent for issuance of such LOC did not exist. The court further observed that such LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but when reasons exist, where an accused deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court.
Regarding current developments in Nimesh Navichandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation, briefly put, the case pertained to one Nimesh Navinchandra Shah, who is being prosecuted both by the CBI and the ED after the account of a company he joined was declared a Non Performing Asset. He has obtained bail in the CBI case, but two LOCs have been opened against him - one, by the CBI, and another, by a Bank. While the LOC issued against the petitioner's wife has been quashed, the one issued against him by the Bank is pending challenge before the High Court. The CBI LOC against the petitioner was challenged before the High Court as well, but his plea was rejected. As such, he approached the Supreme Court.
The bench observed that LOC cannot survive if the Court has granted required permission to travel. Furthermore, it questioned as to why the petitioner was not intimated regarding the existence of an LOC when it was issued especially when CBI has not moved to arrest him as well. The Bench opined that the matter at hand concerned the Petitioner's Right to Freedom of Movement and that ASG DP Singh submit a Standard Operating Procedure regarding the issuance of LOC's.
These recent decisions provide an important perspective into the balance that needs to be maintained between the fundamental right to locomotion and the executive's ability to restrict travel for the sake of law enforcement and national security. In the absence of governance by a formal statutory framework which includes provisions to safeguard principles of natural justice and constitutional rights, the Courts have acted as a vigil against arbitrary issuance of LOCs that restrict the freedom of movement of concerned individuals.
Supreme Court Asks CBI to Formulate SOP on Look-Out Circulars; Says LOC Not Confidential,” LiveLaw, April 21, 2026, https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-nimesh-shah-look-out-circular-copy-not-given-cbi-to-formulate-sop-right-to-movement-surrender-of-passport-531225 ↑
History of LOCs,” Supreme Court Online, accessed April 22, 2026, https://supremecourtonline.in/look-out-circular-history-of-locs/. ↑
Vikram Sharma v. Union of India W.P.(C) 10180/2009 ↑
Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2020 ↑
Rana Ayyub v Union of India & Anr, (W.P.(CRL) 714/2022) ↑
Karti P Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration, W.P. No. 21305 of 2017 ↑
Author is a Lawyer. Views are personal.