Why the Madras HC quashed the LOC issued against Karti Chidambaram in the INX Media case [Read Order]

The Madras High Court on Monday quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Karti Chidambaram, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with an investigation into the INX Media Case..The Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose found that the LOC was issued prematurely and in hot haste, despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure..The CBI has alleged that Karti Chidambaram aided INX Media in obtaining Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approvals by exercising illegal influence between 2007 and 2008, during which time his father, P Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister..An Enforcement Case Information Report lodged against INX Media in May 2017 also has Karti’s name among the accused. A notice had been served upon Karti on July 15, 2017, asking him to appear before the authorities on July 29. The LOC in question was issued a day later on July 16, 2017..The same was contested by Karti in Court. In January this year, the Supreme Court directed the Madras High Court to decide on the matter. After it came up initially, the Court also allowed Karti to travel abroad conditionally while the case was pending..After hearing detailed arguments made by Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium for Karti, and ASG G Rajagopalan for the state, the Court has now found that the LOC is liable to be set aside for the following reasons..LOC was not issued in compliance with MHA guidelines.The primary ground for setting aside the LOC is that it did not conform to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in an Office Memorandum of 2010..An LOC is a coercive measure that is issued in cases where the accused in a case is deliberately evading arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. However, the LOC should be issued in line with the guidelines issued by the MHA in their 2010 Memorandum..Notably, the circular also mandates the disclosure of reasons for issuing the LOC. The Court made note of the following pre-condition,.“Recourse to Look Out Circular is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws. The details in column IV in the enclosed proforma or regarding reason for opening LOC’s must invariably be provided without which the subject of a LOC will not be arrested/detained.”.However, in Karti’s case, no such reasons were forthcoming. It was concluded that the LOC was liable to be set aside on this ground alone..“The mandate of the Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, that a request for issuance of a LOC would necessarily have to contain reasons for such request makes it clear that the condition precedent for issuance of a LOC is the existence of reasons, which should be disclosed in the request for issuance of a LOC. 65. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. .The counter affidavit does not disclose the reasons for making a request for issuance of a LOC. The impugned LOC is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.”.High Court can intervene since LOCs involve adverse civil consequences.As noted in the common order,.“It is, in the view of this Court, too late in the day to contend that whether or not to issue a LOC, being an executive decision, the same is not subject to judicial review. .It is now well settled that any decision, be it executive or quasi-judicial, is amenable to the power of judicial review of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when such decision has adverse civil consequences. .A LOC, which is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with his right of personal liberty and free movement, certainly has adverse civil consequences. This Court, therefore, holds that in the exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ Court can interfere with a LOC.”.LOC in Karti’s case was issued prematurely.In this case, the Court noted that the LOC was issued a day after Karti Chidambaram was directed to appear before the police. At this juncture, the Court remarked that there could not have been any reason to presume that Karti would not appear before the authorities..“…the FIR against the petitioner was lodged on 15.05.2017. Notice was issued on 15.6.2017 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Station House Officer/Investigation Officer on 29.6.2017. On the very next day i.e., 16.6.2017, the impugned Look Out Circular was issued. .As on the date of issuance of the Look Out Circular, there could have been no reason to suppose that the petitioner would not appear before the Station House Officer/Investigation Officer.”.The Court went on to observe that even the acts of the authorities seemed to indicate that there was no immediate apprehension of his evading investigation around the time the LOC was issued..“On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the petitioner did not appear on 29.6.2017 as directed, but only appeared pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. .However, as argued by Mr.Subramanium, the very fact that after issuance of the first notice dated 16.06.2017, which was returnable on 29.06.2017, a further notice was issued on 04.07.2017 granting the petitioner time till 21.07.2017, shows that there was no immediate apprehension of his evading investigation, at least on 04.07.2017. There was, thus, no justification for issuance of the impugned LOC on 16.06.2017, the validity whereof has expired, in any case, after one year.”.In this background, the Court observed,.“…in our view, the Look Out Circular was issued in hot haste when the conditions precedent for issuance of such Circular did not exist. The impugned Look Out Circular is, thus, liable to be set aside.”.Order will not affect any criminal proceedings in the INX case.While quashing the LOC, the Court also clarified that the Court’s order would not affect criminal proceedings initiated in the INX case against Karti Chidambaram. The petitions were disposed of with the following observation,.“For the reasons discussed above, the impugned LOC is set aside and quashed. It is made clear that the order of this Court setting aside the impugned LOC will not impact the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR, referred to above, or any other proceedings initiated against the petitioner.”.Read the order: