On 1 October 2026, LiveLaw reported a Delhi High Court ruling in Deep Kumar Rastogi v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026 LiveLaw (Del) 939). Justice Amit Mahajan quashed two Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued during a money-laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The investigation had been pending for about six years. The court held that an investigation’s mere pendency cannot indefinitely justify restricting a person’s right to travel.

The decision matters beyond its facts. LOCs are issued by executive instruction, not by statute, and investigating agencies often leave them in place for years. This ruling restates a principle that applies to every long-running investigation: a restriction on travel needs a reason that can be shown on the record, and the reason has to stay valid over time.

The Facts Before the Court

The petitioners were Deep Kumar Rastogi, aged 77 and a resident of India, and Gagan Deep Rastogi, a resident of Singapore. Reports of the judgment say that:

  • Both had cooperated with the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) over the years and had appeared when summoned.
  • Both had produced documents and statements voluntarily.
  • Both had travelled abroad during the investigation and returned.
  • One petitioner needed travel to Singapore for medical treatment for liver cancer.

Nothing in the record suggested that either petitioner had evaded the investigation, ignored a summons or tried to abscond.

What the Court Held

An LOC is a coercive measure

Justice Mahajan observed that an LOC “is a coercive measure and cannot be resorted to as a matter of routine merely because an investigation is pending”. The court said the issuance and continued operation of an LOC must be justified by circumstances that warrant restraining the right to travel.

Pendency alone is not an enduring basis

The court held that the fact that an investigation remains pending cannot, in itself, provide an enduring basis for restricting the petitioner’s right to travel, particularly where the petitioner has consistently appeared before the investigating agency. The theoretical possibility of flight is not enough. There must be material showing evasion or a real flight risk.

The right to travel and Article 21

Courts have long treated the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21, which can be curtailed only “according to the procedure established by law.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) established that such procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.

Conditions after quashing

The court did not simply remove all safeguards. According to one report of the judgment, the petitioners must:

  • disclose their travel itineraries and flight details in advance;
  • maintain valid email addresses for service of summons;
  • give 72 hours’ notice before departure and return; and
  • continue to cooperate with the investigation.

LOCs are not created by any Act of Parliament. The Ministry of Home Affairs’ guidelines, originating in 1979 and amended in 2010 and February 2021, allow the Bureau of Immigration to act on a request from a competent authority. The standard ground is a cognizable offence where the accused is deliberately evading arrest and is likely to flee. An exceptional ground covers departures considered detrimental to the sovereignty, security or integrity of India, to bilateral relations, or to India’s strategic or economic interests.

Courts have repeatedly warned against mechanical use of this power. The Delhi High Court has cautioned that LOCs on economic grounds cannot be used in a mechanical manner, and in a separate recent ruling it held that a prior-permission condition for every foreign trip, imposed when an LOC was rescinded, cannot continue where the accused was never arrested.

Why This Matters for Practitioners

For defence counsel

The ruling gives a clear template for challenging a long-standing LOC. The petition should show a record of appearances, compliance with summons, prior foreign travel with return, the absence of trial-court restrictions, and any compelling need such as medical treatment. The offer of reasonable undertakings, such as itineraries and notice, helped the court balance liberty and investigation.

For investigating agencies

Agencies will need to record specific reasons for continuing an LOC, tied to evasion or obstruction, and review them as the investigation ages. A generic reference to a pending PMLA probe is unlikely to survive scrutiny after cooperation over several years.

For individuals and families

Citizens under investigation who have cooperated can seek relief where an LOC blocks travel, especially for medical care. The right is not absolute, and conditions may still be imposed.

Limits of the Ruling

This is a single-judge decision of the Delhi High Court. It turns on its facts: six years of pending investigation, consistent cooperation and no material on flight risk. It does not bar LOCs in cases where an accused has evaded summons or there is evidence of an attempt to leave to avoid the process of law. Other High Courts are not bound by it, and the ED may challenge it.

Conclusion

Deep Kumar Rastogi reinforces that executive power to restrict travel is limited by Article 21. An investigation that has run for years, with a cooperating individual and no evidence of flight risk, cannot justify an open-ended LOC. For practitioners, the ruling is useful authority and a practical guide to the evidence that persuades courts. For agencies, it is a reminder that coercive measures need current, recorded justification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a Look Out Circular?

It is a notice, issued at the request of a competent authority, that directs immigration authorities to monitor or stop a person from leaving India. It rests on Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines, not a statute.

Did the Delhi High Court say LOCs can never be used in PMLA cases?

No. The court held that an LOC cannot be used routinely, and cannot continue indefinitely merely because an investigation is pending. Where there is evidence of evasion or flight risk, an LOC may still be justified.

Who decided the case?

Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court decided Deep Kumar Rastogi v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 939.

Were the petitioners given complete freedom to travel?

Not entirely. Reports say the court imposed conditions, including advance disclosure of itineraries, valid email addresses for summons, 72 hours’ notice of travel and continued cooperation.

Is the right to travel abroad a fundamental right?

Courts treat it as part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It can be restricted only by a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law.

Sources