Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Disclosure Order, Citing National Security and Prime Minister’s Safety
Delhi High Court Upholds RTI Exemption for PM’s Flight Records
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Prime Minister Travel Records involving Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. The ruling concerns Special Flight Returns (SFR-II) documenting the Prime Minister’s foreign visits. The Court held that releasing these records could compromise national security.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the ruling.
The Court observed that flight records contain sensitive information about security arrangements. Moreover, removing the names of security personnel would not eliminate the risks.
Consequently, the High Court set aside a July 2020 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The CIC had directed the IAF to provide certified copies of available SFR-II records.
Court Warns Against Disclosure of Sensitive Flight Information
Justice Amit Mahajan examined the potential security consequences of releasing flight return records.
The Court observed that such information could expose operational details and security arrangements.
Furthermore, even partially redacted records could reveal sensitive patterns.
The judgment stated:
“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 therefore emphasised that public expenditure alone cannot justify releasing sensitive security information.
RTI Application Sought Records of Two Prime Ministers
The dispute began with an RTI application filed in June 2018.
Retired Commodore Lokesh K. Batra sought certified copies of Special Flight Returns.
His request covered both SFR-I and SFR-II records.
The application concerned foreign visits undertaken on IAF aircraft by former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
It covered the period from April 1, 2013, to June 5, 2018.
Batra sought information about official foreign travel involving government aircraft.
However, the IAF declined to disclose the requested records.
Indian Air Force Rejects RTI Request
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, rejected the application.
The IAF relied on Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Section 8(1)(a) protects information whose disclosure could harm national security and other specified interests.
Meanwhile, Section 8(1)(e) concerns information held in a fiduciary relationship, subject to statutory conditions.
The IAF argued that the requested records contained sensitive operational details.
These included aircraft types, aircrew particulars, passenger numbers, and flight routes.
Additionally, the records contained agency details and information about Special Protection Group (SPG) deployments.
According to the IAF, disclosure could compromise the Prime Minister’s security arrangements.
CIC Orders Disclosure of Available SFR-II Records
After the authorities rejected his first appeal, Batra approached the Central Information Commission.
On July 8, 2020, the CIC directed the IAF to provide certified copies of available SFR-II records.
The Commission considered whether the authorities could separate sensitive information from other details.
It concluded that the IAF could redact security-related information before disclosure.
Accordingly, the CIC ordered the release of available records after removing sensitive portions.
However, the IAF disagreed with this approach.
The CPIO subsequently challenged the Commission’s direction before the Delhi High Court.
IAF Challenges CIC Order Before Delhi High Court
The IAF argued that redacting sensitive details would not adequately protect national security.
According to its submissions, the remaining information could still reveal important operational patterns.
The authorities warned that individuals could compare the records with publicly available information.
Such comparisons might expose flight movements, security protocols, and deployment arrangements.
Furthermore, the IAF maintained that the records contained interconnected security information.
Therefore, it argued that partial disclosure would not eliminate the risks.
The High Court examined these concerns while reviewing the CIC’s order.
Redacting SPG Personnel Names Cannot Remove Security Risks
Justice Amit Mahajan rejected the view that removing identifying details would sufficiently protect security arrangements.
The Court observed that the records contained information beyond the names of SPG personnel.
For example, flight routes, aircraft details, and deployment patterns could reveal sensitive arrangements.
Moreover, individuals could cross-reference these details with information already available in the public domain.
Such analysis could help reconstruct security protocols.
Consequently, the Court found that redaction alone would not adequately address the identified risks.
Court Recognises Expertise of Security Agencies
The High Court also examined the role of specialised security agencies.
Justice Amit Mahajan emphasised that these agencies possess expertise in assessing threats to protected individuals.
The Court observed that judges should not replace specialised security assessments with their own subjective views.
Instead, courts must consider the expertise of agencies responsible for the Prime Minister’s protection.
Furthermore, the Court recognised the importance of preventing disclosures that could endanger life or physical safety.
The judgment therefore gave significant weight to the security concerns raised by the IAF.
High Court Examines RTI Act Security Exemptions
The Court considered the statutory protections available under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Section 8(1)(a) addresses information whose disclosure could prejudicially affect national security and other protected interests.
Similarly, Section 8(1)(g) protects information whose disclosure could endanger a person’s life or physical safety.
The High Court examined these provisions while assessing the requested flight records.
It also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020).
The Bench discussed the relationship between statutory exemptions, public interest, and sensitive information.
Accordingly, it rejected the argument that general public interest automatically justified disclosure.
Public Expenditure Does Not Override Security Concerns
The High Court acknowledged the public interest in government expenditure.
Citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding how authorities spend public funds.
However, the Court distinguished financial accountability from access to sensitive operational records.
It observed that expenditure on official foreign visits does not automatically justify disclosing security arrangements.
Moreover, the requested information could expose details concerning the Prime Minister’s protection.
Therefore, the Court concluded that public expenditure alone could not overcome the identified security risks.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Disclosure Order
After examining the submissions, the High Court accepted the IAF’s security concerns.
The Court held that disclosure of SFR-II records could compromise sensitive arrangements.
It also concluded that removing names and identifying details would not sufficiently address those risks.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the Air Force CPIO’s writ petition.
It set aside the CIC order dated July 8, 2020, which had directed disclosure of available SFR-II records.
The ruling therefore upheld the IAF’s refusal to release the requested information.
Judgment Highlights Balance Between Transparency and National Security
The Delhi High Court’s decision addresses the relationship between transparency and national security.
It recognises the importance of public accountability while protecting sensitive operational information.
The judgment also clarifies that redaction may not eliminate security risks when remaining details reveal protected arrangements.
Importantly, the ruling concerns Prime Minister Travel Records containing sensitive IAF flight and security information.
The Court concluded that the public interest in expenditure does not, by itself, justify disclosure of such records.
As a result, the judgment reinforces the application of statutory security exemptions under the RTI Act.
