The Rajasthan High Court recently observed that investigating agencies are indiscriminately using Look Out Circulars (LOCs) to prevent the foreign travel of accused without proper and sufficient justification [Abhayjeet Singh vs State of Rajasthan]..Such actions cause a lot of harassment and humiliation to the persons adversely affected by the LOCs, 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,” the single-judge said..Hence, the Court issued the following guidelines for the authorities to follow in issuance or continuation of the LOCs:Order for issuance of LOC can only be issued in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite coercive measures and there is likelihood of him leaving the country to evade law.In other cases, the originating agency must record reasons and grounds for his satisfaction that the passport is likely to be impounded or revoked by the Passport 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.”In cases where the person is on bail, the LOC must not be in conflict with or override the terms and conditions of the bail.Once investigation is complete, the concerned trial court must be informed about the LOC “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.”The order for issuance of LOC must specifically state that initial validity of an LOC shall not exceed four weeks. Extensions are permissible only if based on reasons given in writing.The person against whom LOC is issued must be given an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.If no cognizable offense is involved, the holder of the passport cannot be detained or prevented from leaving the country. In such cases, only a request can be made for being notified of arrival or departure. The originating agency must review LOCs every three months by giving reasons in writing and then accordingly inform the Bureau of Immigration (BOI).The 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. 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..The Court was hearing a plea challenging the LOC issued against a man in connection with a matrimonial dispute. The Bureau of Immigration had issued the LOC on instructions of Rajasthan Police..To decide the case, the Court went into the genesis of the issuance of LOCs. It found that the term ‘LOC’ does not find mention in the Passport Act and is in fact an invention of the Ministry of Home Affairs that created it through an Office Memorandum (OM) in 1979.“Apart from Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), circulars have also been issued by various other authorities for keeping a watch on arrival / departure of Indians and foreigners. These authorities include the Ministry of External Affairs, the Customs and Income Tax Departments, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, Interpol, Regional Passport Officers, Police authorities in various States, etc,” it noted..The Court also took note of the subsequent revisions done to the OM and concluded that,“Initially the concept of LOC was statutorily envisioned only in those cases where either security or integrity or sovereignty of India was endangered, in any manner, or relations of India with the neighboring country had the potential of being compromised.”.Further, it said the MHA subsequently expanded the scope of LOCs by way of administrative fiats by bringing in the other penal offences and the ones adversely affecting the economic interests of the country. Since the OMs issued by the MHA were not under challenge, the Court refrained from dealing with their legality. However, it observed that the invention was beyond the contours of provisions in the Passports Act..Can LOC be issued without request for impounding or revocation of passport?.The Court noted that provisions of Passport Act allow the Passport Authority to impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport “if it is deemed necessary to do so in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public.”It also found that Section 10-A(1) of the Passport Act allows the Centre or a designated officer on satisfaction that the passport is likely to be impounded or revoked, to pass an order that may render the travel document invalid..In this context, the Court observed that unless a proceeding is initiated for impounding or revocation of the travel document, there would be no material or grounds before the designated officer for his satisfaction that it was likely to happen. In the present case, the Court found no record to show that any request in this regard had been made. It also noted that no opportunity of hearing was given as mandated by law..Accordingly, the Court ruled that continuance of the LOC against the petitioner was not justified. It directed the police to immediately take steps to instruct the BOI to withdraw or close the LOC issued against the petitioner..Advocate Nishant Bora represented the petitioner.Public Prosecutor Vikram Rajpurohit represented the State.[Read Judgment]
