The Delhi High Court has held that Special Flight Returns (SFR) containing details of foreign visits undertaken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on national security grounds.

Justice Amit Mahajan set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the IAF to provide certified copies of available and relevant Special Flight Returns (SFR-II), observing that disclosure of the records could compromise the security arrangements accompanying the Prime Minister and endanger his life and physical safety.

The Court held that merely redacting the names and identifying particulars of security personnel would not eliminate the potential risks arising from disclosure.

"The potential implications of such disclosure for national security and the security apparatus accompanying the Hon’ble Prime Minister cannot be disregarded," the Court observed.

It further held that the expenditure of public funds on foreign visits did not, by itself, justify disclosure of information that could compromise security arrangements.

"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 said.

The judgment was delivered on October 15 on a petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force, challenging the CIC’s July 8, 2020 order.

RTI Applicant Sought Records Of Foreign Visits By Prime Ministers

The matter arose from an RTI application filed by retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra on June 5, 2018, seeking information concerning foreign visits undertaken by India’s Prime Ministers on IAF aircraft from April 1, 2013, until the date of the application.

In its response, the IAF informed Batra that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made no air travel on IAF aircraft between April 1, 2013, and May 25, 2014.

It also stated that Narendra Modi had undertaken three visits on IAF aircraft between June 4, 2016, and July 9, 2018, and provided travel information for certain visits.

However, the IAF denied copies of the Special Flight Returns, which contain details relating to aircraft, aircrew, passengers and the Prime Minister’s entourage, including Special Protection Group (SPG) personnel.

The denial was initially upheld by the First Appellate Authority. Batra then approached the CIC, which directed the IAF to provide certified copies of the available and relevant SFR-II records.

Challenging the CIC’s order, the IAF argued before the High Court that the records contained sensitive information and that disclosure could affect national security and endanger persons associated with the Prime Minister’s security.

Batra, on the other hand, argued that the information concerned expenditure on foreign visits undertaken using public funds and was therefore a matter of significant public interest. His counsel clarified that the applicant was interested in details of private individuals accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel.

Redacting Names Would Not Eliminate Security Risks

The High Court noted the IAF’s submission that SFR-II records contain more than the names of passengers. The prescribed format also includes designations, appointments, identification numbers, flight references, passenger strength and agency particulars.

According to the IAF, these details are interconnected and could be correlated with information already available in the public domain to identify security personnel, reveal the composition of the Prime Minister’s entourage and enable inferences about patterns of security deployment.

The Court accepted that removing names and other direct identifiers would not necessarily eliminate the potential security risks.

It noted that disclosure of successive passenger manifests could enable sensitive aspects of the Prime Minister’s security arrangements to be reconstructed by correlating the disclosed particulars with publicly available information.

Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect national security, while Section 8(1)(g) covers information whose disclosure could endanger a person’s life or physical safety.

The Court held that the IAF was justified in invoking these exemptions in view of the potential implications of disclosure for national security and the Prime Minister’s safety.

The High Court observed that the assessment of whether disclosure of particular information could jeopardise national security or endanger the Prime Minister’s life and physical safety falls primarily within the domain of the agencies entrusted with his security.

"This Court or the CIC cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent security agencies as to whether disclosure of particular information could jeopardise national security or endanger the life and physical safety of the Hon’ble Prime Minister,” the Court said.

It added that it could not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent security agencies.

The Court reiterated that although the RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other protected interests, including the confidentiality of sensitive information.

The Court found that no sufficient larger public interest had been demonstrated to warrant disclosure of the particulars in question.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which permits a public authority to disclose exempt information where public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests. It noted, however, that the provision does not create an enforceable right requiring disclosure in every case.

"In the absence of any demonstrated larger public interest that outweighs these concerns, disclosure of the information sought cannot be directed," the Court said.

Concluding that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of the SFR-II records after redaction of security personnel’s names and identifying particulars, the High Court allowed the IAF’s petition and set aside the CIC’s order.

Case Title: Central Public Information Officer, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd.)

Tags: