Records Of Prime Minister's Foreign Travel In IAF Aircraft Exempt From RTI : Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Order

The Delhi High Court has held that details of the Special Flight Returns (SFR-II) relating to the foreign visits of the Prime Minister of India in the aircraft of the Indian Air Force cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act if such disclosure could compromise national security or endanger the Prime Minister's life and physical safety.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that merely redacting the names and identifying particulars of security personnel would not eliminate the potential security risks arising from disclosure of the records.

“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,” the Court observed.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force, challenging a July 2020 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing it to provide certified copies of available and relevant SFR-II records.

The records were sought by retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra, who had filed an RTI application seeking information concerning foreign visits undertaken by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Indian Air Force aircraft between April 1, 2013, and June 5, 2018.

The Air Force had denied the request for the SFR records, citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. It subsequently challenged the CIC's direction before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the Air Force contended that the records contained sensitive details, including passenger particulars, aircraft and aircrew details, flight references, passenger strength, agency particulars and information concerning the Prime Minister's security personnel.

It argued that even if the names of security personnel were redacted, the remaining details could be correlated with information available in the public domain to reconstruct aspects of the Prime Minister's security arrangements and reveal patterns of security deployment.

Batra, on the other hand, argued that the information concerned expenditure incurred on the Prime Minister's foreign visits using public funds and was, therefore, a matter of significant public interest.

He submitted that he was interested in obtaining details of private persons accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel.

In an order passed on October 15, the Court observed that the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other public interests, including the confidentiality of sensitive information.

The Court further observed that it could not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent security agencies on whether disclosure of particular information could jeopardise national security or endanger the Prime Minister's life and physical safety.

“Such an assessment falls primarily within the domain of the agencies entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the security of the Hon'ble Prime Minister,” the Court said.

The Court also noted that no sufficient larger public interest was demonstrated to warrant disclosure of the information in question.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Court noted that Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) fall within the category of exemptions that do not permit disclosure merely on the ground of larger public interest.

The Court concluded that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of the SFR-II records.

“The petitioner was justified in invoking the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act to deny disclosure of the aforesaid information, in view of the potential implications for national security and the life and physical safety of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, as specifically pointed out by the petitioner,” the Court said.

Accordingly, it allowed the Air Force's petition and set aside the CIC's order.