Madras HC: 7 Astonishing Reasons the 1-Year LOC Limit Liberates Foreign Nationals!

The Madras High Court ruled that foreign nationals cannot be indefinitely detained in India via Lookout Circulars (LOCs) when not formally charged. While acknowledging investigative needs, the court emphasized that subjecting individuals to perpetual travel restrictions without accusation violates their fundamental right to liberty (Article 21). It mandated a strict one-year deadline for agencies like the CBI to conclude probes in such cases.

If no charges emerge post-investigation, the LOC must be revoked. Crucially, the court balanced this protection by permitting conditional overseas travel for compelling personal events, requiring passport surrender to Indian missions abroad and substantial sureties. This decision sets a vital precedent against bureaucratic overreach while respecting legitimate state interests in complex investigations.

Madras HC: 7 Astonishing Reasons the 1-Year LOC Limit Liberates Foreign Nationals!

In a landmark ruling that balances investigative powers with fundamental rights, the Madras High Court has declared that foreign nationals cannot be held hostage indefinitely in India through Look Out Circulars (LOCs) when they haven’t even been formally accused of a crime. The court mandated a strict one-year deadline for completing investigations in such cases, emphasizing the inviolable right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

The Case: Trapped by an LOC 

The petitioner, Karthik Parthiban, a citizen of Seychelles, found himself unable to leave India due to an LOC issued by the CBI. This stemmed from a complex financial investigation concerning alleged siphoning of over Rs. 500 crores. While Parthiban was a director of Broadcourt Investments Ltd. (BVI) during the relevant period, he was crucially never named as an accused in the case filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Chennai. 

Despite fully cooperating with authorities, appearing for inquiries, and even being granted court permission to travel abroad temporarily on three previous occasions (which he complied with), the LOC remained active, effectively confining him to India indefinitely. Parthiban argued this violated his fundamental right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). 

The State’s Stance: Complexity and Flight Risk 

The CBI justified the continued LOC, citing: 

• Seriousness: The case involved massive alleged financial fraud impacting the banking system. 

• Complexity: Ongoing investigations spanned multiple accused and intricate transactions. 

• Flight Risk: Parthiban’s Seychelles citizenship was key – India lacks an extradition treaty with Seychelles, making his potential departure a significant concern if he were implicated later. 

The Court’s Reasoning: Liberty vs. Legitimate Investigation 

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy acknowledged the CBI’s concerns, particularly the genuine flight risk due to the lack of an extradition treaty and the case’s gravity. He agreed that continuing the LOC was justified for now. 

However, the Court delivered a powerful counterbalance: 

• “Not Named as Accused” is Crucial: The Bench stressed that subjecting a foreign national who hasn’t been formally charged to indefinite travel restrictions is fundamentally unfair and disproportionate. “A foreign national cannot be compelled to remain in India indefinitely in connection with a criminal case, particularly when he has not even been named as an accused.” 

• Article 21 Demands Timely Justice: The Court invoked the Right to Life (Article 21), famously interpreted to include the right to a speedy trial. It logically extended this to investigations: “The investigation cannot remain indefinitely pending, and it shall not extend beyond a reasonable period, so as to infringe upon the petitioner’s right to life.” 

• One-Year Deadline: Rejecting indefinite limbo, the Court mandated that the CBI must complete its investigation concerning Parthiban within one year from the order date (June 4, 2025). 

• Clear Outcomes: 

• If no case is found against Parthiban after the probe, the LOC must be revoked immediately. 

• If he is named as an accused, the LOC can continue, and he must face trial. 

• If the investigation drags beyond one year, Parthiban is free to seek the LOC’s quashing. 

A Balancing Act: Conditional Relief for a Family Wedding 

Demonstrating a practical application of this balance, the Court also addressed Parthiban’s immediate plea to attend his brother’s wedding in Malaysia on June 27, 2025. Recognizing his past compliance (returning each time after previous travel permissions), the Court allowed the trip but imposed strict, non-negotiable conditions reflecting the flight risk concerns: 

• Specific travel itinerary submission. 

• Restricted stay only at a declared address in Malaysia. 

• Surrender of passport to the Indian High Commission in Malaysia upon arrival. 

• Execution of a Rs. 10 lakh personal bond. 

• Two substantial sureties (Rs. 10 lakh each), one a relative/business associate with a valid Indian passport and travel history. 

• Passport copies of sureties deposited with CBI. 

• LOC suspended only for this specific, conditional trip (June 17 – July 10, 2025). 

The Bigger Picture: Clarity, Proportionality, and Human Dignity 

This judgment offers vital clarity and safeguards: 

• Protection from Perpetual Limbo: Foreign nationals cooperating with probes but not formally charged gain protection against being trapped in India indefinitely via LOCs. 

• Accountability for Investigators: Agencies are put on notice – complex investigations require diligence and timeliness. “Reasonable period” now has a concrete benchmark in such scenarios (one year). 

• Proportionality Principle: Restrictions must be proportionate to the individual’s status (suspect vs. accused) and the level of risk, considering factors like citizenship and extradition treaties. 

• Practical Relief with Strings: The conditional wedding permission shows courts can balance genuine human needs against legitimate state concerns through meticulously crafted safeguards. 

The Madras HC has sent a clear message: While India rightly protects its financial and legal interests, it cannot do so by indefinitely suspending the fundamental liberty of individuals caught in the investigative web without formal accusation. Justice demands both thoroughness and timeliness.