Delhi High Court Quashes LOCs Against Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy in CBI Cases

The Delhi High Court on Friday quashed the Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against media promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy in connection with cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Court held that the continuation of the LOCs was unjustified in the absence of any substantial progress in the investigations.

Background
The LOCs were issued by the CBI to restrain the petitioners from travelling abroad during the pendency of investigations concerning alleged financial irregularities. Aggrieved by the restrictions, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the circulars.

Court’s Findings
The High Court observed that:

• No chargesheets had been filed in the cases despite considerable lapse of time;
• The investigations had not demonstrated meaningful progress; and
• One of the cases had already been closed on account of lack of evidence.

In light of these factors, the Court found no compelling reason to continue the LOCs.

Right to Personal Liberty
Emphasising the impact of LOCs, the Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty. Any restriction on this right must be backed by valid, subsisting reasons and cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Order
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the Look Out Circulars issued against the petitioners.

Significance
The ruling underscores that coercive measures such as LOCs must meet the test of necessity and proportionality, and cannot be sustained in the absence of active investigation or prosecutorial steps.
Discription: The Delhi High Court quashed Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy in cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court observed that despite the passage of several years, no chargesheets had been filed and there was no substantial progress in the investigations. It also noted that one of the related cases had already been closed due to lack of evidence. Holding that LOCs, which restrict an individual’s right to travel abroad, directly impact personal liberty, the Court ruled that such measures cannot continue indefinitely without valid justification. Finding the continuation of the LOCs to be arbitrary and unjustified, the Court set them aside. The ruling reiterates that coercive actions must satisfy the test of necessity, proportionality, and fairness under the law.