Deals & Matter

Rhea Chakraborty vs Union of India & Ors

Criminal Law

Constitutional Law

Rhea Chakraborty vs Union of India & Ors
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

The petitions were filed by Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and her parents, Lt. Col. (Retd.) Indrajit Chakraborty and Sandhya Chakraborty, before the Bombay High Court. They sought quashing of Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput and related investigations.

The central issue was whether the LOCs, kept operative for more than 3½ years without review, were valid and justified, particularly when the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and were not considered flight risks. The case also raised questions about the constitutional right to travel under Article 21 and the proper interpretation of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Consolidated Guidelines on LOCs.

Petitioner’s Claim

The petitioners, represented by senior counsels Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud and Mr. Ayaz Khan, advanced several arguments:

1. Violation of Fundamental Right
  1. The LOCs had severely restricted their right to travel abroad for personal and professional reasons.
  2. Such restrictions violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty and free movement, including the right to travel internationally.
2. No Justification for Continued LOCs
  1. Although the CBI took over the case in August 2020, no charge sheet or closure report had been filed even after 3½ years.
  2. The petitioners had last been called by the CBI in September 2021, after which no summons were issued. This showed that there was no need to continue the LOCs.
3. Cooperation with Investigating Agencies
  1. All petitioners had attended CBI summons whenever called.
  2. Rhea and Showik were arrested in a separate NDPS case but were released on bail, subject to conditions such as not leaving India without prior court permission. These bail conditions already safeguarded the investigation.
4. Procedural Irregularities in Issuing LOCs
  1. The Consolidated Guidelines (2021) mandate that LOCs must specify reasons for issuance under Column-IV of the proforma. However, the LOCs against the petitioners only mentioned the FIR details and gist, without recording any “reason” such as flight risk or non-cooperation.
  2. Failure to disclose reasons rendered the LOCs arbitrary and illegal.
5. Precedents Relied Upon
  1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): emphasized that restrictions on fundamental rights must follow due process and cannot be arbitrary.
  2. Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India: established that courts where part of the cause of action arises (here, Mumbai) have jurisdiction.
  3. Karti P. Chidambaram v. Bureau of Immigration (Madras High Court, 2018): held that issuance of LOC requires reasons to be recorded.
6. Relief Sought
  1. Quashing of all LOCs issued against them.
  2. Recognition of their right to travel abroad for professional and personal commitments without having to repeatedly approach courts for suspension orders.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

Varun Singh, founding partner at Foresight Law

The Division Bench of the Delhi High

View More
Blogs

The digital transformation of healthcare in India

Public procurement plays a vital role in

View More

Respondent’s Defense

Jurisdictional Challenge

  1. The respondents argued that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction, as the case was originally registered in Patna.
  2. Petitioners should have approached Patna courts for relief.

Investigation Still Ongoing

  1. The CBI maintained that investigations into the death of Sushant Singh Rajput were still pending.
  2. LOCs were necessary to ensure that the petitioners did not flee or evade trial.

Alternative Remedy Available

  1. Instead of quashing the LOCs, the petitioners could seek temporary suspension whenever they needed to travel abroad.
  2. This mechanism had already been used by Rhea and Showik, who had previously obtained court permission for limited overseas travel.

Apprehension of Flight Risk

  1. In its affidavit, the CBI claimed that Rhea Chakraborty posed a risk of fleeing and avoiding investigation or trial.
  2. Although this reason was not mentioned in the original LOCs, the respondents argued it justified continuation.

Court/Judiciary’s Observation

The Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande made detailed observations:

  • Jurisdiction Established
  1. Since the FIR registered by the CBI itself mentioned “Mumbai, Patna and other places” as the place of occurrence, a substantial part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai.
  2. Therefore, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
  • Non-Compliance with Guidelines
  1. The Consolidated Guidelines (2021) clearly require reasons to be recorded under Column-IV of the LOC proforma.
  2. In the petitioners’ case, the LOCs mentioned only the FIR details and did not provide reasons such as flight risk or deliberate evasion of law.
  3. Reasons supplied later through affidavits could not substitute this mandatory requirement.
  • Failure of Periodic Review
  1. Clause (J) of the Guidelines requires quarterly and annual review of LOCs by the originating agency (CBI) and deletion if not warranted.
  2. No evidence was presented to show that such reviews had been conducted since 2020.
  • Right to Travel Abroad
  1. Citing Maneka Gandhi, the Court reiterated that the right to travel is part of Article 21 and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
  2. LOCs are coercive measures and should only be used when there is a demonstrable risk of evasion or non-cooperation.
  • Cooperation by Petitioners
  1. The Court noted that the petitioners had fully cooperated with investigations and were last summoned in September 2021.
  2. Rhea and Showik were already under bail conditions restricting foreign travel, further reducing the need for LOCs.
  • LOCs Cannot Be Indefinite
  1. Keeping LOCs operative for over 3½ years without justification amounted to indefinite restriction on liberty, which was unconstitutional.
  2. The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that petitioners should repeatedly seek suspension for each foreign trip.

Court’s Decision

The Court provided relief to the appellant institution:

  • Quashing of LOCs
  1. The Court quashed and set aside the LOCs issued against all four petitioners (Rhea, Showik, Indrajit, and Sandhya).
  • Future Safeguards
  1. It clarified that authorities were free to issue fresh LOCs in the future, should circumstances arise (such as attempts to abscond or evade trial).
  • Dismissal of Stay Request
  1. After pronouncement, the CBI sought a stay on the judgment, which the Court rejected, noting that liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed without compelling justification.
  • Upholding Fundamental Rights
  1. The decision underscored that restrictions on international travel must be based on reasons recorded in accordance with law.
  2. Mere pendency of investigation cannot justify indefinite LOCs.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top