The Madras High Court recently took a firm stance against the confidentiality surrounding Look Out Circulars (LOCs), asserting that individuals affected by such directives should be informed. In the case of Padmanabhan vs. CBI, Justice V Lakshminarayanan questioned the practice of keeping LOCs secret, emphasizing that those impacted must be aware of proceedings to either comply with or legally challenge them.
Constitutional Rights and Transparency
Justice Lakshminarayanan highlighted the constitutional rights afforded to accused individuals, referencing Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard the right to life and personal liberty and protect against arbitrary detention. He stressed, “This country does not follow a Kafkaesque trial but operates strictly in accordance with the Constitution.” This statement underscores the court’s commitment to transparency and due process.
The Case of K Padmanabhan
The court’s observations arose from a petition by K Padmanabhan, who claimed ignorance of the quantity or existence of LOCs or red flags against him. During the proceedings, the Bureau of Immigration’s counsel remarked that LOCs are confidential documents, a position supported by the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) Special Public Prosecutor.
Court’s Directive for Clarity
Despite these assertions, the court maintained a prima facie view that affected individuals should be informed of LOCs. It directed the Bureau of Immigration and the CBI to submit affidavits justifying the confidentiality of LOCs. Furthermore, they were instructed to clarify the procedure for obtaining travel permissions before a criminal case is formally acknowledged by the court.
Legal Representation and Next Steps
Advocate H Karthik Seshadri represented the petitioner, while Special Public Prosecutor B Mohan appeared for the CBI. Central Government Standing Counsel MP Jaisha represented the Bureau of Immigration. The court is set to revisit the matter on September 16, further examining the justifications for LOC confidentiality and the rights of those impacted.
More Read
The hearing reflects a pivotal moment in balancing national security concerns with individual rights, as the judiciary seeks to ensure procedural fairness and transparency in legal proceedings.
