File photo of the Karnataka High Court.While keeping in abeyance a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against an estranged husband who was stopped from travelling out of India for employment, the Karnataka High Court recently said that an executive measure cannot be allowed to operate in a manner that results in the ‘civil death’ of an individual by completely extinguishing his right to livelihood. In an order dated April 30, which was made available recently, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “The mere pendency of a criminal case, particularly one emanating from matrimonial discord, cannot ipso facto justify an absolute embargo on the petitioner’s right to travel abroad.”The estranged couple had married in 2011, and even before the marriage, the husband was employed in Qatar. Due to matrimonial discord, the woman lodged a complaint under Section 498-A and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code at the Udupi Mahila Police Station in 2022. Following this, the police issued an LOC against the husband, who was intercepted and arrested at the airport upon his arrival in India the same year. In his petition, the husband argued that the LOC has the effect of completely disabling him from travelling abroad, thereby jeopardising his employment and livelihood. Justice Magadum noted that the dispute between the parties is essentially matrimonial in nature, albeit that it has taken the colour of criminal proceedings. Emphasising that the alleged offences are undoubtedly serious, the bench in the order said: “It is equally trite that proceedings arising out of marital discord cannot be permitted to degenerate into instruments of disproportionate restraint, particularly where such restraint impinges upon fundamental rights.” Stating that the right to travel abroad has been recognised as an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court said, “…in cases where employment is situated overseas, any restriction imposed by the State must satisfy the test of proportionality.” Observing that the husband has neither absconded from the process of law nor has shown any inclination to evade trial, the bench opined, “Criminal law, especially in the context of matrimonial disputes, should not be employed as a means of economic strangulation.”Story continues below this ad Accordingly, the bench held “Continuance of the Look Out Circular, without providing a mechanism for the petitioner to pursue his employment, is disproportionate and warrants interference.” The bench then directed respondents to permit the petitioner to travel abroad for the purpose of resuming his employment and directed the husband to provide an undertaking giving details of his place of employment and stating that he would attend court hearings.
New DelhiMay 16, 2026 06:06 AM IST On April 17, Noida Police had identified three persons as the alleged masterminds in the case: Rupesh Roy, who claimed to be an autorickshaw driver; Manisha Chauhan; and Aditya, a BTech graduate from NIT Jamshedpur. The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Uttar Pradesh government to produce before it two of the men arrested in connection with the April 13 violence in Noida following a worker’s protest after their families alleged that they were tortured in custody. A bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked the counsel appearing for the state government to produce Aditya Anand and Rupesh Roy before it on May 18 at 2 pm. The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by Keshav Anand, brother of Aditya. According to the police, Aditya and Rupesh had used WhatsApp groups to instigate violence during the protests.Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves said Aditya was an engineer and also operated a children’s library. Seeking an independent investigation into the matter, he said Aditya campaigned for workers’ rights and his speech recordings were proof of this. The counsel also claimed that lawyers were not being allowed to effectively assist Aditya. The counsel appearing for the UP government, however, denied the allegations of torture in policy custody. All requirements of arrest were complied with, including supply of grounds of arrest, the counsel said. Hearing the arguments, the court said, “We direct respondent no.1/State to produce the brother of the petitioner, Aditya Anand, and Rupesh Roy, before this court on 18.05.2026 at 2 pm.” In the meantime, judicial custody of the two will continue, it added.Story continues below this ad On April 17, Noida Police had identified three persons as the alleged masterminds in the case: Rupesh Roy, who claimed to be an autorickshaw driver; Manisha Chauhan; and Aditya, a BTech graduate from NIT Jamshedpur. A day later, a joint team of Noida Police and the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force arrested Aditya from Tiruchirappalli railway station. He was carrying a cash reward of Rs 1 lakh for his arrest. “A case had been registered against Aditya Anand at Phase 2 police station for allegedly masterminding and orchestrating the violent activities that took place during a workers’ sit-in and demonstration in the area,” the police had said in an official statement. They had alleged that his role was central to planning and executing the inflammatory acts that accompanied the agitation. The Uttar Pradesh Police had also invoked provisions of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980 against student activist Akriti Choudhary and journalist Satyam Verma in connection with the Noida workers’ protest case.Story continues below this ad The protest and the violence that followed had led to the registration of 15 FIRs. According to the police, the protest was not organic but premeditated. They had alleged that an “organised syndicate of outsiders” orchestrated the violence – a charge denied by the families of those arrested.
New DelhiMay 16, 2026 05:14 AM IST “We will not hear this matter in a piecemeal (manner). We will not permit any activity unless we are fully satisfied,” a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said after the matter, listed for hearing on Friday, was mentioned.The Supreme Court on Friday said it won’t pass any order in favour of mining lease holders for now as it has been getting “quite disturbing” feedback regarding mining in the Aravalli hills and range. The apex court said there were specific ecological issues and in February it had asked the environment ministry and other stakeholders to suggest names of domain experts for a panel to define the Aravalli hills and ranges.“We will not hear this matter in a piecemeal (manner). We will not permit any activity unless we are fully satisfied,” a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said after the matter, listed for hearing on Friday, was mentioned. The top court is hearing a suo motu case titled “In Re: Definition of Aravalli hills and ranges and ancillary issue”. “Lot of things are happening there. We are getting feedback and it is quite disturbing,” the CJI observed. The bench told the lawyer who mentioned the matter if any mining lease is cancelled, the concerned party may challenge it. “We will not pass any order in favour of the mining lease holders now…” it said.
After reviewing the records, the Karntaka High Court noted that Khan had not registered himself as a pilgrim for Haj and had not deposited any money. (Express File Photo)The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging a circular issued by the Haj Committee of India that increased airfare by Rs 10,000 per pilgrim due to rising fuel prices amid the ongoing West Asia conflict. Justice S Vishwajith Shetty in its order dated May 7 said, “The petition is dismissed as not maintainable.”Younus Khan, a resident of Kolar district, approached the court against the increase in the passenger flight charges. Advocate Suhail Dil Nawaz, appearing for Khan, argued that authorities have already collected Rs 2,77,300 from the Haj pilgrims and are now asking them to pay an additional Rs 10,000 towards differential airfare. Khan contended that the air tickets had been booked well in advance and argued that the authorities could not seek additional payment solely on the grounds of rising fuel prices due to the ongoing conflict in West Asia. After reviewing the records, the bench noted that Khan had not registered himself as a pilgrim for Haj and had not deposited any money. “The demand for payment of differential amount of Rs.10,000, vide circular dated 28.04.2026, is only from the pilgrims of Haj 2026 who have registered their names with the Haj Committee of India and have already paid/deposited the amount,” Justice Shetty said. “Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance as against the said circular, and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the same.”Story continues below this ad The Haj Committee issued a circular dated April 28, 2026, seeking additional amounts from each pilgrim. “The one-time airfare revision for pilgrims applies to all pilgrims, regardless of their departure city. The decision had been taken in view of pressing requests from airlines for revision of base fare on account of an increase in Aviation Turbine Fuel prices, due to the prevailing situation in the Middle East,” it said. In a statement, the Union Ministry for Minority Affairs, under which the Haj Committee functions, had said, “It shared the concerns of every pilgrim who saves for years to perform Haj. The facts: Airlines demanded $300–$400 per pilgrim due to the sharp rise in Aviation Turbine Fuel prices caused by the ongoing Middle East crisis — a global emergency beyond any government’s control. After extensive negotiation and due consultation with stakeholders, the Ministry of Minority Affairs approved a one-time revision of only $100 per pilgrim, irrespective of embarkation point — a saving of $200–$300 per pilgrim compared to what airlines originally sought.” Opposing the circular and seeking its rollback, Congress Minority Affairs Department chairman Imran Pratapgarhi had said that “forcing” an additional Rs 10,000 collection on Haj pilgrims right before their journey is “utter injustice”. Similarly, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi had termed the demand for additional airfare as “exploitation” and demanded the withdrawal of the circular on the increase.
Discussion (0)