Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order dated 8 July 2020 directing disclosure of Prime Minister’s special flight returns (SFRs) records, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., held that SFRs containing details of the Prime Minister’s foreign air travel can be withheld under Section 8(1)(a) and (g), Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), where disclosure could jeopardise national security or endanger the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister. Accordingly, the Court set aside the CIC’s direction to disclose the records, holding that “redacting the names of security personnel alone could not eliminate the potential risks to the Prime Minister’s security.
The Court observed that,
“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.”
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the respondent sought information under the RTI Act, concerning foreign visits undertaken by the Prime Ministers of India in Indian Air Force aircraft from 1 April 2013 onwards. He specifically requested copies of Parts I and Part II of the SFR relating to the visits of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The Indian Air Force furnished certain travel information but refused to disclose the SFRs, citing the sensitive nature of the records and exemptions under the RTI Act. The first appellate authority upheld the denial.
On appeal, the CIC, by its order dated 8 July 2020, directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of the available and relevant SFR-II records. Challenging this direction, the Central Public Information Officer approached the Delhi High Court.
Issue for Consideration
Whether the CIC could direct disclosure of SFRs concerning the Prime Minister’s foreign visits after redacting the identities and particulars of security personnel, when such disclosure could compromise national security and personal safety?
Analysis
The Court stated that though the RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, but the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other public interests, particularly the confidentiality of sensitive information and national security. It relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein it was emphasised that the RTI Act requires a reasonable and balanced approach to reconciling transparency with the protection of competing public interests.
The Court noted the Air Force’s contention that SFR-II records contained interconnected particulars, including passenger names, designations, appointments, identification numbers, flight references, passenger strength and agency details. It accepted the Air Force’s submission that disclosure of these particulars, even after redaction of direct identifiers, could enable the reconstruction of sensitive security arrangements by correlating the information with material already available in the public domain.
The Court noted that “Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act specifically exempts information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, its relations with foreign States, or lead to incitement of an offence. Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act specifically exempts information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person.”
Relying on Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, the Court observed that Section 8(1)(a) and (g) provide exemptions concerning national security and information whose disclosure could endanger a person’s life or physical safety. It also referred to Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61, on the scope of the protection under Section 8(1)(g).
The Court held that the CIC and the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent security agencies on whether disclosure could jeopardise national security or endanger the Prime Minister. Such an assessment fell primarily within the domain of agencies responsible for the Prime Minister’s security. (V.K. Singh v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4342)
The Court further held that the expenditure of public funds on foreign visits, by itself, did not establish sufficient larger public interest to justify disclosure of information that could compromise security arrangements.
Decision
The Court held that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of SFR-II records after redaction of the names and identifying particulars of security personnel. The Air Force was justified in invoking Section 8(1)(a) and (g), RTI Act in view of the potential implications for national security and the Prime Minister’s life and physical safety.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the CIC’s impugned order dated 8 July 2020.
[Central Public Information Officer, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.), W.P.(C) 10165/2020, decided on 15-10-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Amit Mahajan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. and Mr. Anil Vashist from Air Force.
For the Respondent: Mr. Prasanna S., Ms. Injila Muslim Zaidi, Mr. Ashish Reddy, Mr. Prasanna Balakumar and Ms. Ishita Tulsyan, Advs.
