New Delhi: In a significant ruling with implications for corporate governance and regulatory oversight, the Delhi High Court has set aside Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation against NDTV founders Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy.
The LOCs, originally opened in 2019, were quashed by Justice Sachin Datta, who held that their continued enforcement amounted to an unjustified restriction on the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that there was no substantive evidence suggesting that the Roys had either failed to cooperate with investigators or posed any risk of absconding. It also noted that no chargesheet has been filed to date, despite the passage of several years since the FIRs were registered.
Highlighting proportionality, the judgment observed that prolonged investigative delays cannot justify indefinite travel restrictions. The bench rejected arguments that the LOCs were necessary on grounds of “economic interest” or “larger public interest,” stating that such claims must be backed by concrete material.
The ruling further pointed out that the Roys had been permitted to travel abroad multiple times during the course of the investigation and had consistently returned to India, undermining any apprehension of flight risk. Additionally, there was no record of coercive measures—such as non-bailable warrants—being required to secure their presence.
The LOCs stemmed from two FIRs filed in June 2017 and August 2019, linked to allegations being probed by the CBI. During earlier hearings, the agency had defended the circulars as a means to monitor the movements of the promoters, citing potential international dimensions to the case.
However, the Court had previously indicated skepticism over the indefinite continuation of such restrictions. In earlier observations, it had remarked that allowing the LOCs to persist without progress in the investigation would be untenable.
The latest order brings closure to a long-standing legal challenge by the Roys, who had argued that they had complied with all summons and that the prolonged investigation unfairly curtailed their mobility.
The decision is likely to be closely watched in corporate and legal circles, particularly in cases involving financial investigations, as it underscores judicial scrutiny over the use of coercive mechanisms without demonstrable necessity.
