Introduction:

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has expressed reservations over the continued enforcement of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against NDTV’s former promoters, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy. The LOC, initiated in 2019, was based on allegations of financial irregularities. However, with the CBI filing a closure report in the primary case citing insufficient evidence, the court’s recent observations highlight concerns about the prolonged duration of such restrictions without substantial justification.

Background:

The CBI had registered two First Information Reports (FIRs) against the Roys in 2017 and 2019, alleging financial misconduct related to loan settlements with ICICI Bank. The agency claimed that RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd, associated with the Roys, had taken substantial loans and failed to disclose pertinent information to regulatory bodies. However, after a comprehensive seven-year investigation, the CBI submitted a closure report in October 2024, stating the absence of legally tenable evidence to proceed with the case.

Arguments Presented:

Petitioners’ Stand:

The Roys contended that they had consistently cooperated with the investigation, responding to all summons and providing necessary documentation. Their counsel emphasised that the LOC had become redundant, especially after the CBI’s closure report. They also highlighted that the Roys had been permitted to travel abroad on multiple occasions, reinforcing their commitment to comply with legal proceedings.

CBI’s Position:

The CBI argued that the LOC was still relevant due to ongoing investigations into other related matters. The agency maintained that the LOC served as a precautionary measure to monitor the Roys’ movements, given the international dimensions of the case. They also cited guidelines stating that an LOC remains active until explicitly revoked by the issuing authority.

Court’s Observations:

Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the matter, remarked that continuing the LOC seemed futile, especially in light of the closure report. He emphasised that such restrictions should not persist indefinitely without compelling reasons. The court acknowledged the Roys’ cooperation and noted the absence of any evidence suggesting they posed a flight risk. Consequently, the matter was listed for further hearing on July 10, 2025.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court’s observations underscore the importance of balancing investigative prerogatives with individual rights. While the CBI’s concerns about potential international ramifications are valid, the prolonged enforcement of an LOC without substantial justification raises questions about procedural fairness. As the case progresses, it will be crucial to ensure that legal measures do not infringe upon personal liberties without due cause.