A Look Out Circular (LOC) is an alert issued by law enforcement authorities to immigration, police and border control agencies to prevent a person from leaving the country, usually where that person is an accused in a criminal investigation or trial. LOCs are intended to ensure that individuals do not evade court process or investigation.

Judicial decisions hold that LOCs should only be issued when there is reasonable apprehension that an accused may evade justice — for example:

• The individual is absconding or likely to escape.
• There is a pending investigation or trial under a penal statute.
  Issuing an LOC without such circumstances is generally considered unjustified.

Yes. Courts have repeatedly held that:

• The authority that issued the LOC can withdraw it.
• Criminal courts can cancel or affirm an LOC on application, similar to the manner in which non-bailable warrants can be cancelled.
  This ensures judicial oversight over LOC issuance and helps protect fundamental liberties.

No. Decisions such as Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India emphasise that an LOC cannot be issued in the absence of criminal proceedings, since there is no basis to believe the person is evading investigation or trial.

Yes. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Noor Paul v. Union of India held that non-supply of the LOC copy, lack of reasons for issuance, and absence of any hearing violate principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India (protection of life and personal liberty).

No. Courts have rejected the practice of issuing LOCs in contexts not grounded in criminal law, such as:

• Maintenance enforcement under Section 125 CrPC (as reiterated by Karnataka High Court), and
• Money recovery in civil or financial disputes.
  LOC powers are for criminal process enforcement, not civil remedies.

Yes. In cases such as Yerramilli Srinivas v. State of Telangana, courts admonished police for not sending delete LOC requests to immigration authorities after bail has been granted, stressing that LOCs should not remain active once the accused appears or complies with court orders.

Yes. LOCs can restrict a person’s right to travel abroad, which is part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty). Therefore, LOC issuance must satisfy reasonableness, fairness, and due process.

Some judgments (e.g., Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran v. Union of India) state that LOCs may be justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as where departure of a person may be damaging to national security, sovereignty, or strategic interests — not as an ordinary procedural measure.

No. High Courts (e.g., Telangana High Court) have clarified that complainants do not have a fundamental right to insist upon issuance of an LOC — it is a discretionary executive/ investigative action guided by law, not by individual entitlement.

Constitutional courts have directed that:

• LOCs must be withdrawn or deleted when they are no longer required.
• Investigating authorities must regularly review LOCs and update immigration authorities.
  Failure to do so can lead to judicial intervention or orders mandating LOC deletion.