Media

Delhi High Court Quashes LOCs Against NDTV Founders Prannoy, Radhika Roy

The court held that such prolonged continuation of LOCs restricting their right to travel is “disproportionate and arbitrary”.

Delhi High Court Quashes LOCs Against NDTV Founders Prannoy, Radhika Roy

NDTV Founders Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy. (Photo: X)

In a significant ruling on personal liberty, the Delhi High Court on Friday (March 21) set aside long-standing look out circulars (LOCs) issued against media executives Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, observing that the continued restrictions on their travel abroad were excessive and lacked justification.

The court held that such prolonged continuation of LOCs restricting their right to travel is “disproportionate and arbitrary”.

Emphasising constitutional protections, Justice Sachin Datta reiterated that the right to travel abroad forms an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that the continued operation of the LOCs amounted to an unjustified curtailment of this fundamental right.

While granting relief, the court directed the petitioners to furnish an undertaking to appear before investigating authorities whenever required and to fully cooperate with any ongoing proceedings.

The LOCs were initially issued in 2019 by the Bureau of Immigration at the request of the Central Bureau of Investigation, with a subsequent circular issued in January 2021. These have now been quashed by the High Court.

The case stems from FIRs registered by the CBI in 2017 and 2019 alleging financial irregularities, including claims that NDTV Ltd. created multiple subsidiary entities across jurisdictions to route funds. However, no chargesheet has been filed in the matter so far. The first FIR had already been closed after a court accepted the agency’s closure report in 2025.

Taking note of the prolonged restrictions, the court observed that the Roys had remained cooperative throughout the investigation, had not attempted to evade legal processes, and had not been named in any chargesheet.

It further held that preventing them from travelling abroad for such an extended period, without sufficient grounds, resulted in significant prejudice.

Comments (0)

Leave a Comment

   Can't Read ? Click    Refresh