RTI Exemption Ruling: Delhi HC says public funds argument cannot compromise PM security
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has quashed a 2020 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Indian Air Force (IAF) to disclose flight records relating to foreign visits of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his predecessor Manmohan Singh, holding that their disclosure could jeopardise national security.
Justice Amit Mahajan, in his October 15 judgment, upheld the IAF’s decision to withhold the records under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The dispute goes back to June 5, 2018, when retired Navy Commodore Lokesh K. Batra filed an RTI application seeking details of foreign visits undertaken by Indian Prime Ministers on IAF aircraft since April 1, 2013. He specifically sought copies of Special Flight Returns (SFR), which contain particulars of the aircraft, crew members and passengers, including Special Protection Group (SPG) personnel accompanying the Prime Minister.
The IAF furnished certain travel details but refused to part with the flight returns, citing security concerns. It also informed Batra that Manmohan Singh had not undertaken any foreign travel on IAF aircraft between April 1, 2013, and May 25, 2014.
Batra’s first appeal proved unsuccessful. However, the CIC, in July 2020, directed the Air Force to furnish the available SFR-II records after removing the names and identifying particulars of security personnel.
The Air Force challenged this order before the Delhi High Court. It contended that even after redacting the names, the remaining details could be pieced together with information already available in the public domain to identify security personnel and expose their deployment patterns.
Batra, on the other hand, maintained that he was interested in knowing the particulars of private individuals accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, and not the identities of security personnel.
Justice Mahajan found merit in the Air Force’s apprehensions. In paragraph 21, he observed:
“This Court or the CIC cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent security agencies”.
The Judge held that assessing the possible threat from disclosure fell primarily within the domain of agencies responsible for the Prime Minister’s protection.
The Court also rejected Batra’s argument that expenditure from public funds warranted 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,” the Court observed in paragraph 22, while referring to information that could compromise security arrangements.
Finding that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure even after redaction, the High Court allowed the Air Force’s petition and set aside the July 2020 order.
