Later, the Ministry of Home Affairs (India) argued that her deposition before a British parliamentary committee would have been "prejudicial to national interest"[1] In its judgment, the Delhi High Court observed that dissent "may not be palatable; even so, it cannot be muzzled.
"[11] In an Intelligence Bureau report addressed to the Prime Minister's Office from June 2014, Greenpeace's activities were claimed to be causing negative impact on the country's economic development.
Eventually, the Ministry filed an affidavit stating that the action was based on a look-out circular issued the day before her flight, at the request of the Intelligence Bureau.
At one point, the Assistant Attorney General Sanjay Jain told the court: To this remark, Pillai said that she refused to Justice Shakdher wanted to know why the government had singled out an individual citizen.
"[17] In February, the Delhi High court expunged the ban on travel for Pillai, In his judgement, justice Rajiv Shakdher observed: While the judgment states that the process by which Look-Out Circulars (LOC) are issued is not "enacted law", it did not strike it down.
[21] A columnist in Firstpost saw a broader tendency: In a column in The Guardian, Aditya Chakrabortty remarked on lack of action from the Prime Minister in such incidents: