Disposed¶42

Neena Mittal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC25 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/11611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Look Out Circular; LOC; public sector bank; Chairman Managing Director CEO; issuance and judicial review of LOC; right to travel; Article 21 Constitution of India; Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 Clause 6 (L); Vineet Gupta v. Union of India WP(C) 7850/2025 judgment dated 10.02.2026; Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699; CBI; charge-sheet; cooperation with investigation; cancellation of LOC by concerned court; writ petition disposed; High Court of Delhi; 25.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

LOCs issued at the instance of the banks set aside as unsustainable in law; petitioner no.2 granted liberty to approach the concerned Court for cancellation of the CBI-issued LOC in view of the change of circumstances; petition and pending applications disposed of. ¶42

Neena Mittal & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the LOCs opened against the petitioners at the instance of the banks are sustainable in law. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Applying its ruling in Vineet Gupta (judgment dated 10.02.2026, WP(C) 7850/2025) that an LOC issued at the instance of the Chairman, Managing Director or Chief Executive Officer of a public sector bank would not stand the scrutiny of law and judicial review, this Court held the LOCs issued at the instance of the banks against the petitioners unsustainable in law and set them aside.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In respect of the LOC issued at the instance of the CBI, petitioner no.2, if aggrieved by its issuance, is at liberty to approach the concerned Court for its cancellation in view of the change of circumstances; the petition was disposed of granting that liberty.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., oral), W.P.(C) 11611/2024, decided 25.02.2026 — Look Out Circulars (LOCs). LOCs had been opened against the petitioners at the instance of banks, with a further LOC at the instance of the CBI. Applying the guiding principles laid down by the Court in Vineet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. (judgment dated 10.02.2026, W.P.(C) 7850/2025) — including that an LOC issued at the instance of the Chairman, Managing Director or CEO of a public sector bank would not withstand the scrutiny of law and judicial review, and that LOCs impinge on the right to travel under Article 21 — the Court held the bank-originated LOCs unsustainable in law and set them aside. On the CBI-originated LOC, the Court recalled Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 (withdrawal by the originating authority; rescission/modification by the trial court or the court having jurisdiction over the concerned police station), noted the petitioners' claim of full cooperation, and that per the CBI's reply a charge-sheet had been filed only against petitioner no.2 while no LOC had been opened against petitioner no.1; petitioner no.2 was granted liberty to approach the concerned Court for cancellation of the LOC in view of the change of circumstances. Petition and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11611/2024, CM APPLs.48216-18/2024, 29558/2025 & 67754/2025

¶4

Date of Decision : 25.02.2026

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶6

NEENA MITTAL & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶7

Through: Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari with Mr. Amit Dhall and Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Advocates.

¶8

versus

¶9

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms Sunanda Shukla with Ms Maanya Saxena, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶12

JUDGEMENT

¶13

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶14

It appears that at the instance of banks the LOCs were opened against the petitioners. The Court in the case of Vineet Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. vide its judgment dated 10.02.2026 in WP(C) 7850/2025 has held as under:

¶15

“28. On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum,

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date18:55:17 :13. 03.2026 W.P.(C) 11611/2024

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

it is seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the issuance, continuance, and judicial review of LOC:

¶22

(i) LOC constitutes a coercive executive measure having a substantial impact on the fundamental right to travel, which forms an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the power to issue an LOC must be exercised sparingly, strictly in accordance with law, and only upon satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under the governing Office Memoranda;

¶23

(ii) An LOC may be issued only in cases involving a cognizable offence under the relevant statutes, where specific, tangible material demonstrates that the person concerned is deliberately evading arrest or judicial process, or that there exists a real and proximate likelihood of absconding;

¶24

(iii) Moreover, the exceptional power under Clause 6 (L) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 is to be narrowly construed and may be exercised only in rare and compelling cases, where, the proposed departure of subject poses a clear and grave threat to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India, or to its strategic or economic interests in a national or systemic sense, or the larger public interest;

¶25

(iv) An LOC issued at the instance of Chairman, Managing Director, or Chief Executive Officers of Public Sector Banks, would not withstand the scrutiny of law and judicial review. Thus, as of now, the LOC issued to Public Sector Banks cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed;

¶26

(v) Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, are duty-bound to subject the issuance and continuation of LOCs to strict scrutiny, balancing the legitimate interests of the State with the individual’s fundamental rights, and to quash such circulars where the restraint imposed is found to be arbitrary, disproportionate, lacking in statutory backing, or violative of the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process. Ultimately, the burden lies squarely upon the “originating agencies” to justify, the necessity, proportionality, and legality of the restraint, failing which such action cannot be sustained. Pertinent to observe that the continuance of an LOC is not indefinite and must be periodically reviewed. Where it is evident from the record that the subject has cooperated with the investigation, has not evaded the process of law, and where no further interrogation or presence is demonstrably required, the

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date18:55:17 :13. 03.2026 W.P.(C) 11611/2024

¶29

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

continued operation of an LOC would amount to an unreasonable and unjustified restriction on personal liberty;

¶32

(vi) However, it is also to be emphasised herein that the Writ Court is not the exclusive grievance redressal mechanism available to a person against whom a LOC has been issued. As held in Sumer Singh Salkan, a person against whom a LOC is issued is, in the first instance, required to join the investigation or surrender before the jurisdictional Court, or otherwise satisfy the Court that the LOC is unwarranted. The individual may also approach the authority which ordered issuance of the LOC and seek its withdrawal on the grounds of illegality or nonapplication of mind. An LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority and may also be rescinded or modified by the trial Court or the Court having jurisdiction over the concerned police station, upon an appropriate application.”

¶33

It has been clearly held that an LOC issued at the instance of Chairman Managing Director or Chief Executive Officer of the public sector banks would not stand on the scrutiny of law and judicial review. Thus, the LOCs issued at the instance of the banks are unsustainable in law and are hereby set aside.

¶34

So far as the LOCs issued at the instance of the CBI is concerned, this Court in the case of Sumer Singh Salkan v. Asstt. Director & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2699 has held that the individual may approach the authority which ordered issuance of LOC and seeks its withdrawal on the ground of legality or non-application of mind. It has also been held that an LOC may be withdrawn by the originating authority and may also be decided or modify by trial court or the court having jurisdiction over the concerned police station upon an appropriate application. The petitioners submit that they had fully cooperated with the investigation being carried out by the CBI. Even as per the reply filed by the CBI, it appears that only against petitioner no.2 the charge-sheet has been filed and no LOC was

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date18:55:17 :13. 03.2026 W.P.(C) 11611/2024

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

opened against petitioner no.1.

¶41

Be that as it may, the petitioner no.2, if is agreed by the issuance of the LOC by the CBI, shall be at liberty to approach the concerned Court for its cancellation in view of the change of circumstances.

¶42

Granting that liberty, the instant petition stands disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶43

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶44

FEBRUARY 25, 2026 Tr/ap

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶47

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date18:55:17 :13. 03.2026 W.P.(C) 11611/2024

¶48

Page 4 of 4

Neena Mittal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neena Mittal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shishupal Chauhan & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Kailash Jain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S L J Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Himanshita Designer Floors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Sri Venkateswara Diploma in Elementary Education College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kartar Singh Tanwar Vs the Speaker Legislative Assembly Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sonu Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Harpreet Kaur Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Nikhil Nijhawan & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Arvind Kumar Tiwari Vs Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs

Sugam Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.

Smt Dipika Sant Vs Government of NCT of Delhi, through Its Secretary, & Anr.