Disposed¶48

Abhishek Gupta v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC26 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/15042/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Look Out Circular / LOC; quashing of LOC; personal guarantor; consortium of banks; public sector bank LOC; Vineet Gupta vs. Union of India (2026:DHC:1616); Sumer Singh Salkan; Article 21 right to travel; judicial review of LOC; Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 Clause 6(L); RTI Act 2005 Section 8(1)(g) exemption; Ministry of Home Affairs; writ of certiorari and mandamus; Gupta Power Infrastructure Ltd.; W.P.(C) 15042/2025; Delhi High Court; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.; disposed with directions on 26.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Look Out Circular issued at the instance of the Banks, with the same liberty to the respondent-Bank as granted in Vineet Gupta; the petition, along with pending applications, disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ¶48

Abhishek Gupta Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15042/2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 26.02.2026

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶5

ABHISHEK GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Mr. Abhiraj Chaoudhary, Ms. Mili Tomar, Mr. Shivam Bhimsaria and Ms. Akansha Singhania, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Seemant K. Garg, Mr. Nitin Pal, Advocates for R- 3./ Bank. Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate for R- 8. Mr Tushar Sannu and Ms Pulak Gupta Joshi, Advocates for DDA.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶11

J U D G E M E N T

¶12

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶15

Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date13:00:44 :28. 02.2026 W.P.(C) 15042/2025

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

The petition is for the following reliefs:

¶18

a) Issue Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondents to disclose and place on record before this Hon’ble Court the following details as on the date of filing of the instant Petition and also provide to the Petitioner.

¶19

I. Date of issuance of LoC, issued against the Petitioner by the Respondent No 2. And;

¶20

II. Details/reasons of the issuance of LoC, including restrictions placed on the travel of the Petitioner abroad. And;

¶21

III. To issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the said LoC issued by Respondent No 2 and all consequential actions taken by the Respondents pursuant to the issuance of LoC;

¶22

And/or

¶23

b) Pass such other and further Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.

¶24

The Petitioner is a Director and personal guarantor of Gupta Power Infrastructure Ltd., a company engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical cables, conductors, and execution of EPC contracts. The said company had availed various credit facilities from a consortium of banks comprising Respondent Nos. 3 to 14.

¶25

Subsequently, the consortium lenders-initiated proceedings against the Company and its guarantors under various statutes. During a consortium meeting held in April 2025, the respondent - Banks informed the petitioner that they were in the process of issuing Look Out Circulars against him, but no written communication or details were provided.

¶26

In order to ascertain the existence and details of any LOC, the petitioner has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 18.06.2025. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs declined to furnish the requested information vide reply dated 08.07.2025, citing exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

¶27

The controversy involved in the instant matter is covered by the

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶30

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date13:00:44 :28. 02.2026 W.P.(C) 15042/2025

¶31

Page 2 of 4

¶32

decision passed by this Court in the case of Vineet Gupta vs. Union of India¹ , . In paragraph no. 28 of the said judgment, this Court has held as under:

¶33

“ 28. On the conspectus of the aforenoted decisions and memorandum, it is seen that the following guiding principles emerge governing the issuance, continuance, and judicial review of LOC:

¶34

(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;

¶35

(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;

¶36

(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;

¶37

(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;

¶38

(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,

¶39

1 2026:DHC:1616

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶42

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date13:00:44 :28. 02.2026 W.P.(C) 15042/2025

¶43

Page 3 of 4

¶44

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

¶45

(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 non-application 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.”

¶46

In view of aforesaid, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner, is almost similar to the case of Vineet Gupta . The petitioner and Mr. Vineet Gupta both stood as a personal guarantor.

¶47

In view thereof, the LOC issued at the instance of Banks stands quashed, with same liberty to the respondent-Bank, as has been granted in the case of Vineet Gupta.

¶48

With the aforesaid directions, the petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶49

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV) JUDGE

¶50

FEBRUARY 26, 2026/ aks/ss.

¶51

Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date13:00:44 :28. 02.2026 W.P.(C) 15042/2025

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA Page 4 of 4 KUMAR KA URAV

Abhishek Gupta v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Gupta v. Union of India and 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

Anand Swaroop Goyal Vs Delhi Development Authority

Combi Enterprises Vs U.O.I & Anr.

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

Jasim Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Puneet Dewan Vs Delhi Development Authority

Amadeus It Group Sa Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1) International Taxation & Ors.

Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kavinder Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

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

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

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

NTPC Ltd. Vs Ampl Resources Private Limited

Pay 10 Services Private Limited Vs Union of India Ad Ors.

Jan Seva Welfare Society Vs High Court of Delhi at New Delhi & Ors.