Introduction:
In Maria Ramesh v. Union of India and Another, the Delhi High Court was called upon to examine the legality and constitutional validity of a Look Out Circular (LOC) that had remained operational against a woman accused in a high-value real estate investment dispute for several years, despite her continued cooperation with the investigation and the absence of any coercive action against her. The case raised important questions on the balance between the State’s power to investigate economic offences and an individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while quashing the LOC, delivered a reasoned decision emphasising that mere pendency of investigation or registration of an FIR cannot, by itself, justify the prolonged curtailment of a citizen’s freedom of movement. The judgment reaffirms constitutional safeguards against arbitrary executive action and underscores that investigative measures must remain proportionate, justified, and rooted in demonstrable necessity.
Factual Background:
The petitioner, Maria Ramesh, was named as an accused in an FIR registered in 2020 by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR arose out of a real estate investment dispute involving an alleged amount of approximately ₹22.5 crore. The complainants alleged misappropriation of funds in connection with a real estate project.
During the course of investigation, the petitioner was never arrested. In August 2022, she was granted anticipatory bail by the trial court, which specifically recorded that no illegality or siphoning of funds was apparent at that stage. The trial court also noted that the real estate project in question was substantially complete, to the extent of about 50–70%, and that the Investigating Officer had stated that no illegal fund transfer had been detected.
Despite this, a Look Out Circular was issued against the petitioner, the existence of which she came to know only when she was stopped from travelling abroad. Over time, the LOC prevented her from travelling overseas, including to Australia, where she sought to visit in connection with her granddaughter’s medical condition. Aggrieved by the continued operation of the LOC and the lack of disclosure of reasons for its issuance, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking its quashing.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner assailed the LOC as arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of her fundamental rights. It was argued that she had fully cooperated with the investigation at all times and had not been summoned by the investigating agency for more than three years. Despite the lapse of a considerable period, no charge sheet had been filed against her, nor was there any allegation of non-cooperation, evasion, or interference with the investigation.
The petitioner emphasised that she was not arrested in the case and that her anticipatory bail, granted in 2022, continued to operate without any adverse observation. She pointed out that the trial court, while granting bail, had found no prima facie evidence of siphoning of funds or illegality, and had also noted the substantial completion of the project. The Investigating Officer’s own statement that no illegal fund transfer had been detected was relied upon to demonstrate the lack of necessity for any coercive or restrictive measure.
It was further contended that the petitioner had previously travelled abroad with the permission of the Court and had returned to India within the stipulated time, thereby demonstrating that she posed no flight risk. Despite this, the LOC continued to remain in force without any fresh or contemporaneous material to justify its continuation. The petitioner argued that the authorities had failed to furnish her with the grounds for issuance of the LOC, even upon request, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Placing reliance on Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner submitted that the right to travel abroad is an intrinsic part of personal liberty and cannot be curtailed except by a procedure established by law that is just, fair, and reasonable. Mere pendency of investigation, it was argued, does not meet this constitutional threshold.
Respondents’ Arguments:
The respondents, represented by counsel for the Union of India and the investigating agency, sought to justify the issuance and continuation of the LOC by contending that the investigation against the petitioner was still ongoing. It was argued that the magnitude of the alleged financial dispute and the seriousness of the accusations warranted precautionary measures to ensure the petitioner’s availability for investigation and trial.
The respondents maintained that LOCs are preventive tools used to secure the presence of an accused and to ensure that they do not evade the process of law by leaving the country. Given that the FIR pertained to economic offences involving substantial amounts, the respondents contended that the continued operation of the LOC was justified in the interest of investigation.
However, significantly, there was no specific allegation made by the respondents that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation, had evaded summons, or had attempted to flee the jurisdiction. Nor was any fresh material placed on record to demonstrate a change in circumstances or a supervening necessity that would warrant the continued restraint on her right to travel.
Issues for Consideration:
The High Court was essentially required to consider whether the mere pendency of investigation or registration of an FIR can justify the prolonged operation of a Look Out Circular, and whether such continuation, in the absence of any demonstrable necessity or supervening circumstance, amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav undertook a careful examination of the facts and the legal principles governing the issuance of Look Out Circulars. The Court reiterated that an LOC is a coercive measure that directly impacts an individual’s personal liberty and freedom of movement. As such, it cannot be allowed to operate mechanically or indefinitely, particularly when the circumstances that may have initially justified its issuance no longer subsist.
The Court noted that the petitioner was never arrested in connection with the FIR and had been granted anticipatory bail, which continued to operate without interruption. The grant of anticipatory bail, coupled with the trial court’s observations that no illegality or siphoning of funds was apparent, weighed significantly in favour of the petitioner. The Court also took note of the Investigating Officer’s statement that no illegal fund transfer had been detected during the investigation.
A crucial aspect highlighted by the Court was the petitioner’s conduct throughout the investigation. It was observed that she had remained diligent, cooperative, and available to the investigating agency, and had joined the investigation whenever required. Importantly, there was no allegation of non-cooperation, evasion of summons, or interference with the investigation. In such circumstances, the Court found it difficult to justify the continued operation of an LOC solely on the ground that the investigation was still pending.
Right to Travel Under Article 21:
The High Court reaffirmed the settled position that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction on this right must satisfy the test of reasonableness and must be supported by a fair, just, and reasonable procedure. The Court emphasised that executive measures such as LOCs cannot be allowed to result in a prolonged or indefinite curtailment of fundamental rights without adequate justification.
Justice Kaurav observed that mere pendency of investigation cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for restraining an individual’s right to travel abroad. To sustain such a restriction, there must be some compelling reason, such as a real apprehension of flight risk, non-cooperation with investigation, or interference with the administration of justice. In the absence of such factors, the continued operation of an LOC would amount to an unwarranted infringement of personal liberty.
Absence of Supervening Circumstances:
Another critical factor considered by the Court was the absence of any supervening or fresh circumstances that could justify the continuation of the LOC. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously travelled abroad with court permission and had returned within the stipulated time. This conduct, according to the Court, militated against any apprehension that she would abscond or evade the process of law.
The Court further observed that no new material had been placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that the petitioner’s travel abroad would prejudice the investigation in any manner. In the absence of such material, the continued operation of the LOC was found to be unnecessary and disproportionate.
Court’s Judgment:
In view of the above analysis, the Delhi High Court held that the continued operation of the Look Out Circular against the petitioner amounted to an unreasonable restraint on her personal liberty and right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court categorically observed that mere pendency of investigation or registration of a criminal case cannot justify the prolonged curtailment of an individual’s fundamental rights.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that in the absence of any allegation of non-cooperation, evasion, or interference with investigation, and in the absence of any supervening circumstance, the continuation of the LOC was unwarranted. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner.