Supreme Court Orders CBI to Draft SOP for Look‑Out Circulars after Accused Stopped at Airport

Overview The Supreme Court on 21 April 2026 asked the CBI to formulate a SOP for issuing LOC . The directive arose after the petitioner, Nimesh Navinchandra Shah , was barred from travelling despite a court‑granted bail permission. Key Developments Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned why the LOC was not served to the accused. The petitioner had obtained bail in the CBI case, yet two LOCs (one by CBI, one by a bank) were still operative. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal argued that the LOC was treated as a confidential document, depriving the accused of any pre‑ or post‑decision hearing. Justice Mehta suggested that the passport could be deposited with the court as a condition, instead of a blanket travel ban. The Court directed the CBI to place the LOC on record and to submit a detailed SOP. Important Facts The petitioner’s chargesheet was filed without arrest, and the ED also pursued the case after the company’s accounts were declared a Non‑Performing Asset. The High Court had dismissed his plea to quash the LOC, prompting the Supreme Court intervention. Justice Nath emphasized that an LOC, being a non‑confidential document, must disclose reasons for issuance, as per the CBI’s own memorandum. Justice Mehta highlighted that impounding a passport without a specific bail condition violates the accused’s right to free movement. UPSC Relevance Understanding the procedural safeguards around bail and travel restrictions is essential for GS2 (Polity) and GS4 (Ethics) topics. The case illustrates the tension between investigative powers of agencies like the CBI and constitutional guarantees such as Article 21 (right to personal liberty) and Article 19(1)(d) (right to move freely). It also underscores the need for transparent administrative processes, a recurring theme in governance questions. Way Forward The CBI is expected to submit a comprehensive SOP covering issuance, communication, and review of LOCs. Potential measures include: (i) mandatory service of LOC to the accused; (ii) a pre‑decision hearing where reasons are explained; (iii) clear criteria for passport impoundment; and (iv) periodic judicial review. Such reforms would align investigative practices with constitutional safeguards and reduce litigation over procedural lapses. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s intervention signals a push for procedural clarity in the use of LOCs, balancing the investigative mandate of the CBI with the fundamental right to free movement. The forthcoming SOP will set a precedent for how future LOCs are handled across India.