Look Out Circulars and the Right to Travel Abroad
Where the law stands in 2026
Many people first hear of a Look Out Circular (LOC) at an airport immigration counter, passport in hand, when they are told they cannot board. There is no prior notice, no hearing and often no copy of the order. The last two years have brought important rulings on how far the State may go in restricting a person's travel before any finding of guilt. The Supreme Court, in particular, has begun examining the LOC mechanism itself.
What is a Look Out Circular?
An LOC is an alert placed in the Bureau of Immigration's system at airports, seaports and land borders. The agency that asks for it (the originating agency) states what immigration officers should do if the person is found. The options are to prevent departure, to detain and hand over the person to the agency, or only to inform the agency of the person's movement.
No Act of Parliament deals with LOCs directly. The procedure is set out in Office Memoranda of the Ministry of Home Affairs, first issued in 2010 and consolidated on 22 February 2021. Under these guidelines, an LOC is ordinarily meant for cognizable offences where the person is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing before the trial court despite warrants. The originating agency must record reasons, and the LOC must be reviewed from time to time. The Passports Act, 1967 and the arrest provisions of the BNSS, 2023 operate alongside the guidelines, but they do not replace them.
The Constitutional Starting Point
Since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), it has been settled that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. It can be curtailed only by a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable. In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court called it an important basic human right. So an LOC is not just an administrative convenience. It restricts a fundamental right and must be justified as one.
Recent Supreme Court Developments
Nimesh Navinchandra Shah v. CBI (SLP (Crl) No. 3288 of 2026)
April 2026A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dealt with a petitioner facing CBI and ED prosecutions who had lived under an undisclosed LOC for more than three years, even though courts had permitted him to travel. The Court observed that an LOC is not a confidential document, because the CBI's own guidelines require reasons to be recorded. It criticised the practice of people discovering LOCs only at immigration. The Court asked the CBI to frame a standard operating procedure covering transparency, notice, and coordination with court permissions to travel. It also suspended the LOC and impleaded the Ministry of Home Affairs to answer the larger question of where the power to issue LOCs comes from. The final outcome could change LOC practice across the country.
Union of India v. Viraj Chetan Shah (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2136)
August 2024In April 2024, the Bombay High Court struck down the clause allowing public sector banks to seek LOCs against borrowers in the economic interests of India. In August 2024, the Supreme Court (Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh) stayed that judgment in the interim. It directed affected borrowers to apply to the High Court for permission to travel, and asked for such applications to be decided expeditiously. So bank-initiated LOCs remain operative until the appeals are decided. For now, the practical remedy is a travel application, not an outright quashing on this ground.
Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana (2026 INSC 628)
June 2026Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a High Court order that had allowed an accused to travel to the USA for medical treatment when adequate facilities were available in India. The Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is not absolute. It must be balanced against the complainant's right to a speedy trial and society's interest in effective prosecution.
How High Courts Are Applying These Principles
Baldevraj Topan Ram Taneja v. Assistant Director, SFIO
Bombay High Court, February 2026
The Court quashed an LOC against an 89-year-old Pune resident in an SFIO investigation. It relied on his cooperation with the investigation, his roots in India and his record of complying with travel conditions.
Bank of Baroda v. Surender Kumar Bansal
Delhi High Court, June 2026
The Court held that an LOC is an exceptional coercive measure. It cannot continue indefinitely once its purpose — such as completing the investigation — has been served.
Practical Takeaways
Find out whether an LOC exists, and on what basis
Following Nimesh Shah, the originating agency should find it harder to refuse to disclose an LOC and its reasons.
Cooperation is the strongest factor
Courts give the most weight to appearance before the agency, compliance with earlier travel conditions and roots in India.
A purely civil or loan dispute is not enough on its own
However, bank-initiated LOCs are currently governed by the Supreme Court's interim order in Viraj Chetan Shah.
Choose the right forum
Options include a representation to the originating agency, a travel application before the trial court where proceedings are pending, a writ petition under Article 226, or a bail or anticipatory bail application with suitable travel conditions.
Expect conditions
Courts commonly allow travel against a security deposit, surety, itinerary and an undertaking to return. The Seesa Santosh ruling means that, in pending trials, the reason for travel will be examined closely.
Conclusion
Until the Supreme Court decides the larger questions raised in Nimesh Shah and Viraj Chetan Shah, each case will turn on its facts. The best outcomes usually come from moving early and with a complete record of cooperation.
Facing a Look Out Circular? We Can Help.
Aequitas Legis Associates advises on LOC challenges, travel applications, writ petitions, and bail conditions across Bombay High Court, Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court of India.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and the court's assessment.
← Back to all articles