New Delhi, Oct 19 — The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Indian Air Force (IAF) to disclose details of foreign visits undertaken by Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh on IAF aircraft, holding that the information could compromise national security and endanger the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan, while allowing a petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Directorate of Personal Services at Air Headquarters, ruled that the IAF was justified in denying the information under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The High Court observed that even after redacting the names and identifying particulars of security personnel, disclosure of the remaining details could enable sensitive aspects of the Prime Minister's security arrangements to be reconstructed by correlating them with information available in the public domain.
"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," Justice Mahajan said in the order passed on October 15.
The High Court was hearing a petition challenging the CIC's July 8, 2020, order allowing an appeal filed by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (retd) and directing the IAF to provide certified copies of available and relevant Special Flight Returns (SFR- Part II) concerning foreign visits of the Prime Ministers.
The applicant had filed an RTI application in June 2018 seeking information relating to every foreign visit undertaken by the Prime Ministers on IAF aircraft from April 1, 2013, onwards.
The IAF provided certain travel details but denied copies of the SFRs, citing exemptions under the RTI Act. It maintained that the records contained sensitive particulars relating to aircraft, aircrew, passengers and Special Protection Group (SPG) personnel accompanying the Prime Minister. It argued that disclosure of such information, when read alongside publicly available material, could provide strategic and tactical advantages to forces inimical to the security of the country.
Challenging the denial, Batra submitted that the information concerned expenditure incurred on foreign visits using public funds and was, therefore, a matter of significant public interest. He also clarified that he was interested in obtaining details of private persons accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense and not the identities of security personnel.
However, the High Court observed that the right to information was not absolute and had to be balanced against other public interests, including the protection of sensitive information.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgments, Justice Mahajan said that the RTI Act sought to harmonise transparency and accountability with the need to preserve confidentiality where disclosure could conflict with other public interests.
"The right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other rights and interests protected by law, including the right to privacy," the High Court observed. It further said that the prescribed SFR-II format contained not only passengers' names but also their designations, appointments, identification numbers, flight references, passenger strength and agency particulars. These details, it said, were interconnected and could facilitate the identification of security personnel and reveal the composition of the Prime Minister's entourage and patterns of security deployment.
"Once the concerned authority was of the view that revealing certain information could jeopardise national security and the security of the Hon’ble Prime Minister, it was entitled to invoke the exemption under Section 8(1)(a) and Section 8(1)(g)," the High Court said.
It further held that the mere fact that public funds had been spent on the Prime Minister's 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," the order said.
Holding that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of the records even after redaction of the names and identifying particulars of security personnel, the Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order. On December 11, 2020, the High Court had stayed the operation of the CIC’s impugned order while issuing notice on the IAF’s petition.