The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Indian Air Force (IAF) to disclose detailed records of foreign visits undertaken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on IAF aircraft. Justice Amit Mahajan held that disclosure could compromise national security and endanger the Prime Minister’s safety.
Background
The matter arose from an RTI application filed on June 5, 2018, by retired Commodore Lokesh K. Batra. He sought information about foreign visits undertaken by Indian Prime Ministers on IAF aircraft from April 1, 2013, onwards, including copies of Special Flight Returns (SFR), Parts I and II.
The Air Force provided certain travel information but refused to disclose the detailed flight records, citing security concerns. These records contained particulars relating to aircraft, aircrew, passengers and the Prime Minister’s entourage, including Special Protection Group (SPG) personnel.
After the First Appellate Authority upheld the denial, Batra approached the CIC. On July 8, 2020, the Commission directed the IAF to provide certified copies of available and relevant SFR-II records. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) challenged that direction before the High Court.
The IAF argued that removing the names and identifying details of security personnel would not eliminate the risks associated with disclosure. Other particulars, when combined with information already available publicly, could reveal the composition of the Prime Minister’s entourage and patterns in security arrangements.
Justice Mahajan emphasised that the right to information must be balanced against legitimate security concerns. Referring to Supreme Court judgments on the RTI Act, the Court examined the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g), which protect information affecting national security and information whose disclosure could endanger a person’s life or physical safety.
The Court observed, “The potential implications of such disclosure for national security and the security apparatus accompanying the Hon’ble Prime Minister cannot be disregarded.”
It further held that assessing potential threats to the Prime Minister’s security primarily falls within the responsibility of the competent security agencies. The Court stated that neither it nor the CIC could substitute its own assessment for that of the agencies entrusted with this responsibility.
Rejecting the argument that expenditure from public funds alone justified disclosure, the Court observed,
“The mere fact that public funds have been expended on the foreign visits of the Hon’ble Prime Minister does not, by itself, justify disclosure of information which may compromise the security arrangements put in place for such visits.”
Justice Mahajan held that sufficient larger public interest had not been demonstrated to outweigh the identified security risks. The Court concluded that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure, even after redaction of security personnel’s identities.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the CPIO’s petition, set aside the CIC’s order dated July 8, 2020, and disposed of the pending applications.
