"LOCs Are Being Indiscriminately Issued": Rajasthan HC Issues Guidelines On Issuance & Continuation Of Look Out Circulars

The Court's observations stemmed from a case in which an LOC had been issued against an individual in connection with a matrimonial dispute. The LOC had been issued by the Bureau of Immigration on the instructions of the Rajasthan Police. The Court delved into the origins of LOCs, noting that the term “LOC” does not appear in the Passport Act but was introduced through an Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 1979. Over time, the MHA had expanded the scope of LOCs beyond national security concerns to include other penal offenses and economic matters.

A Bench of Justice Arun Monga said, “They have to run from pillar to post including approaching the Courts for relief. This in turn results in considerable addition to administrative work of the concerned authorities and of the Courts. Ultimately, that is against the larger public interest,”

In response, the Court issued specific guidelines for the issuance or continuation of LOCs, which are primarily used to track and prevent the foreign travel of accused individuals. The guidelines include:

(a) The issuance or continuation of an LOC effectively suspends or invalidates the individual's passport or travel document, restricting foreign travel. This action should not be taken lightly in a casual manner, as the Supreme Court has recognized the right to travel abroad as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India)10.

(b) Order for issuance of LOC can only be passed by originating agency (O.A.) in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused and/or under trial, as the case may be, is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there is likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial / arrest. It is thus a situation akin to issuance of NBWs in exercise of Magisterial powers, but for the difference that Home Ministry has empowered BOI to only detain / restrain a person from travelling abroad and not arrest, if he is either evading arrest or deliberately not appearing in the trial court.

(c) In cases other than falling in (b) above, while taking a decision to instruct the BOI to open / issue an LOC for preventing the subject to travel abroad, the O.A. must record reasons and grounds for his satisfaction for believing that the passport is likely to be impounded or revoked under Section 10(3)(c) by the passport 10 (1978) SCC 248 [2024:RJ-JD:42547] [CRLMP-4572/2023] (29 of 30) authority either in the interest of sovereignty or integrity, security of India or in the interest of friendly relation of India with a foreign country or general public interest.

(d) In cases where the person in question has been granted bail, the order for issuance of LOC must not conflict with or override the terms and conditions of the bail or over reach an order passed by the court.

(e) Once an investigation is completed and a report under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 173(2) of the CrPC), is submitted, any LOC issued or continued must be reported by O.A. in writing to the concerned court to ensure propriety and to prevent misuse of the power to issue order for opening an LOC or continuance thereof, as the case may be.

(f) The order passed by the O.A. for issuance of LOC must specifically state that initial validity of an LOC shall not exceed four weeks. Extensions are permissible only if the O.A. deems it appropriate and provides reasons in writing.

(g) The affected individual i.e. as per Section 10-A of the Act, passport holder must be given an opportunity to be heard within eight weeks of the LOC issuance or continuation at the instance of O.A. To facilitate this, the O.A. must refer the matter to the Central Government in a timely manner, allowing the Government to provide a hearing and, if necessary, modify or revoke the LOC order by taking such decision in writing.

(h) If no cognizable offense is involved, the holder of passport, i.e., subject of LOC, cannot be detained or prevented from leaving the country. In such cases, the O.A. can only request for being notified of the subject’s arrival / departure.

(i) Originating agency must review LOCs quarterly i.e. every 3 months by giving reasons in writing. After the review, if the LOC is no longer needed Proposals for deletion must be submitted immediately. LOC deletion requests must be conveyed promptly to BOI to avoid adversely affecting individual liberties unnecessarily.

(j) Originating agency must send a deletion request of LOC to BOI as soon as the purpose of the LOC is fulfilled or the subject is arrested.

(k) Each originating agency, in every district of the state, must appoint a nodal officer for effective communication and updates with BOI, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

Advocate Nishant Bora appeared for the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpurohit appeared for the Respondent.

The Court also pointed out that the issuance of an LOC without initiating a proceeding for the impounding or revocation of a passport was contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, which only allows such actions based on a specific satisfaction that it is necessary for national security or public interest. In the present case, the Court found no record showing that any request had been made to impound or revoke the passport, and no opportunity for a hearing had been given to the individual affected.

Consequently, the Court ruled that the continuance of the LOC against the petitioner was unjustified and directed the police to instruct the Bureau of Immigration to withdraw or close the LOC issued against the petitioner.

Cause Title: Abhayjeet Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2024:RJ-JD:42547]

Click here to read/download Order