Delhi HC sets aside CIC order on PM's flight records for security

The Delhi High Court quashed a CIC order for the IAF to disclose PM Modi's and Manmohan Singh's foreign flight records. The court ruled that disclosure would compromise national security and the PM's safety, upholding the RTI Act's exemptions.

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Indian Air Force to disclose flight records relating to foreign visits undertaken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, holding that releasing the information could compromise national security and the safety of the Prime Minister.

Justice Amit Mahajan allowed a petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, and held that the Air Force was justified in denying access to the records under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Background of the RTI Plea

The court ruled that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of Special Flight Returns (SFR-II), even after redaction of the names and identifying particulars of security personnel, observing that removing such details would not necessarily eliminate the potential security risks. The High Court set aside the CIC’s July 8, 2020, order, which had directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of available and relevant SFR-II records concerning foreign visits of Modi and Manmohan Singh undertaken on Indian Air Force aircraft. The case arose from an RTI application filed by retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra on June 5, 2018, seeking information about foreign visits by Indian Prime Ministers on Indian Air Force aircraft from April 1, 2013, until the date of his application.

Air Force's Security Concerns

In its response, the Air Force provided certain information about Modi’s foreign travel and stated that there had been no air travel by Manmohan Singh on Indian Air Force aircraft during the period from April 1, 2013, to May 25, 2014. However, it refused to disclose copies of the Special Flight Returns, Part-I and Part-II, citing national security concerns and the confidential nature of the records. The Air Force maintained that the documents contained sensitive details about the aircraft, aircrew, passengers and Special Protection Group (SPG) personnel accompanying the Prime Minister. It argued that disclosure of the records, particularly when correlated with information already available in the public domain, could reveal aspects of the Prime Minister’s security arrangements.

After the First Appellate Authority rejected Batra’s appeal in September 2018, he approached the CIC, which directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of the available and relevant SFR-II records. The Air Force challenged that direction before the High Court. During the proceedings, the Air Force submitted that the records contained interconnected details, including passengers’ designations, appointments, identification numbers, flight references, passenger strength and agency particulars. It argued that these details could potentially enable the identification of security personnel, reveal the composition of the Prime Minister’s entourage and allow inferences to be drawn about patterns of security deployment.

Public Interest vs Security

Batra’s counsel argued that the information concerned expenditure incurred on foreign visits using public funds and was, therefore, a matter of significant public interest. The counsel submitted that the request was aimed at obtaining details of private individuals accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel.

High Court's Rationale and Verdict

Rejecting the contention that the expenditure of public money, by itself, justified disclosure, the High Court observed that sufficient larger public interest had not been demonstrated to warrant releasing the particulars sought. “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 observed.

The court further held that once the competent authority had concluded that disclosure could jeopardise national security or the safety of the Prime Minister, neither the CIC nor the court could substitute its own assessment for that of the security agencies entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the Prime Minister. Referring to Supreme Court judgments on the scope of exemptions under the RTI Act, the High Court reiterated that the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other protected interests, including national security and the confidentiality of sensitive information.

The court noted that Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the security or strategic interests of the State, while Section 8(1)(g) protects information whose disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Concluding that the Air Force was justified in invoking these exemptions, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the CIC’s order. All pending applications were also disposed of.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)