Observing that a look out circular (LOC) restricts a person's free movement and the right to travel, the Calcutta high court has said it should be issued only in exceptional circumstances.
LOCs are issued where it is apprehended that the persons concerned might not return from abroad to India, the high court said.
Quashing an LOC issued against a couple who had been deboarded from a flight to the United Kingdom on account of it, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya said these have an inexplicably long shelf-life.
"Look out circulars which have the effect of restricting a person's free movement and the right to travel should only be issued in exceptional circumstances," the court observed.
Justice Bhattacharya also observed that banks have been given untrammelled powers to issue, use and exploit the lock-in power of an LOC ”without sufficient recourse being provided in law to the person at the receiving end of it."
The court noted that as per official memoranda (OM), an LOC is supposed to remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the originator and that no LOC will be deleted automatically.
It said although there is a provision that the originating agency has to review the LOC on a quarterly or annual basis and submit proposals for its deletion, this is "sadly" found to be absent in most cases.
"This spells dangerous repercussions on the person's right to freely move across and beyond the country and remain mobile," the court observed.
The petitioners had obtained loans from a consortium of 11 banks for the expansion of businesses.
It was noted by the court that the petitioners have settled the claims of all the banks except the bank on whose behest the LOC was issued and two other banks.
The petitioners stated that they have also given a proposal to the other two banks for a one-time settlement which is under consideration.
They had moved the high court seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom on account of the academic compulsions of their son, claiming that they were deboarded from an aircraft.
They also prayed for quashing of the LOC after coming to know later that they were not allowed to fly because of it.
Passing judgment on the petition on June 9, Justice Bhattacharya said that the bank, in this case a PSU, cannot have any continuing reason to interfere with the petitioners' travel outside the country.
The court directed that the bank and the other respondents, including the immigration authority, will not continue to give any further effect to the LOC preventing the petitioners from travelling outside India.
The court noted that as per official memoranda (OM), an LOC is supposed to remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the originator and that no LOC will be deleted automatically.
The court said that LOCs cause "immediate and irrevocable violation of a person's fundamental right of movement."
Maintaining that there is "something draconian and uncivilised" in a person being deboarded from an aircraft without being informed of the reason for such, the court said, "This is against the principles of natural justice and fair play in action where the fundamental right to travel and the right to life is inexorably compromised and with impunity."
The court observed that the extreme repercussions of issuing an LOC must hence be regulated to give it form and certainty and not be made the norm for recovery of outstanding payments to the bank.
"Isolated and few-and-far between cases of persons fleeing the country cannot become the uniform rationale for issuing LOCs left, right and centre," Justice Bhattacharya said.
