Introduction:

In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a challenge by the Union of India regarding a Bombay High Court order that quashed a Look-Out Circular (LOC) against Samuel Miranda, who served as a house help to the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The case, which has garnered considerable public attention, revolves around the circumstances of Rajput’s untimely death in 2020 and the ensuing legal proceedings that have since unfolded. The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, not only considered the absence of representation from the Union of India during the hearing but also deemed the High Court’s decision well-reasoned and justifiable on its merits.

Factual Background:

Following the tragic death of Sushant Singh Rajput, which was classified as a suicide, a series of investigations were launched. His father filed a complaint alleging foul play, which led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against several individuals, including Samuel Miranda. The case was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which took over the investigation and opened a LOC against Miranda.

Additionally, Miranda faced charges in a separate Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case, for which he was granted bail. In 2024, after enduring nearly four years of uncertainty due to the LOC imposed on him, Miranda approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash this circular. His petition highlighted that the LOC had been pending for over three and a half years without any subsequent police report, asserting that this was a violation of his right to travel and constituted an infringement of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Arguments by the Appellant (Union of India):

In the Supreme Court proceedings, the Union of India, represented by its legal counsel, challenged the Bombay High Court’s decision, arguing that the LOC was justified based on the serious nature of the allegations stemming from the FIR. They maintained that the LOC was a necessary tool for preventing potential evasion of justice, especially in cases involving drug-related offences and other criminal activities.

The Union’s counsel contended that the LOC served as a protective measure not only for the investigation but also for public safety, given the high-profile nature of the case. They argued that the issuance of the LOC followed established protocols and guidelines intended to prevent individuals from fleeing the jurisdiction in cases involving serious charges.

Arguments by the Respondent (Samuel Miranda):

On the other hand, Samuel Miranda’s counsel asserted that the issuance and continuation of the LOC were arbitrary and unjustified. They highlighted several key points in their arguments:

• Lack of Grounds for LOC: Miranda’s legal team pointed out that the LOC was initially based on the mere registration of an FIR and that there were no substantial grounds for its continued enforcement. They emphasized that the CBI had not filed any charge sheet or closure report throughout the investigation, indicating a lack of evidence to substantiate the charges against Miranda.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petition underscored that the continued existence of the LOC infringed upon Miranda’s fundamental right to travel. They cited constitutional provisions guaranteeing this right, arguing that it could not be curtailed without due process.
• Insufficient Justification: The counsel contended that the reasons provided for issuing the LOC were inadequate and did not comply with the Consolidated Guidelines for LOC issuance. They argued that these guidelines require a review of the necessity for the LOC periodically, which had not been done in this case.
• Cooperation with Investigation: Miranda’s team asserted that he had cooperated fully with the investigation, further negating any claims that he posed a flight risk or would evade justice.

Court’s Observations:

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court bench noted the absence of the Union’s representation during the hearing, despite the matter being called twice. This absence was significant, especially given the high stakes involved in the case. The Court expressed its concern regarding the procedural lapses in the handling of the LOC by the authorities.

In its observations, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of adhering to due process in the issuance of LOCs. It highlighted the necessity for valid grounds when curtailing an individual’s right to travel, emphasizing that mere allegations or the existence of an FIR should not automatically justify such drastic measures.

The bench reiterated the High Court’s findings that the continuation of the LOC lacked substantive justification and that the CBI had failed to demonstrate a valid reason for keeping the LOC active. The Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the issuance of the LOC was based solely on the FIR and that there had been no evidence presented to justify its prolongation.

Judgment:

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s order quashing the Look-Out Circular against Samuel Miranda. The Court dismissed the Union of India’s appeal, concluding that the High Court had provided a comprehensive and well-reasoned judgment that correctly applied legal principles regarding the issuance and continuation of LOCs.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to travel as enshrined in the Constitution and underscored that such rights can only be restricted under clearly defined legal circumstances. The dismissal of the Union’s challenge signifies a critical stance by the Court on the importance of due process and the protection of individual rights against arbitrary state actions.