The Delhi High Court has refused to allow the disclosure of detailed Indian Air Force records concerning foreign trips made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, holding that transparency cannot come at the cost of national security.
Setting aside an earlier order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that information revealing the security arrangements surrounding the Prime Minister’s overseas travel could pose risks to his safety and compromise the agencies responsible for protecting him.
The dispute centred on Special Flight Returns (SFR) Parts I and II, records that contain details of aircraft, aircrew and members of the travelling entourage, including personnel deployed by the Special Protection Group (SPG).
In its October 15 order, the High Court emphasised that the possible consequences of releasing such information for national security and the Prime Minister’s security apparatus could not be overlooked.
The Court also made it clear that judicial authorities and the CIC could not replace the assessment of specialised security agencies when determining whether disclosure might endanger the Prime Minister.
Such decisions, it observed, primarily fall within the responsibility of agencies tasked with protecting the Prime Minister, whose security assessments cannot simply be substituted by the Court’s own judgment.
How the RTI dispute began
The matter originated in June 2018, when retired Navy Commodore Lokesh K Batra sought information about foreign visits undertaken by Indian Prime Ministers aboard Indian Air Force aircraft between April 2013 and June 2018.
The request covered the period during which both Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi served as Prime Minister.
The Air Force furnished information concerning certain visits but declined to release the requested SFR Part I and Part II records. Its Central Public Information Officer cited security concerns and also relied on the exemption relating to information held in a fiduciary capacity.
Batra subsequently approached the Central Information Commission, which directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of the available and relevant SFR-II records after removing the names of security personnel.
The Air Force challenged that direction before the Delhi High Court.
Public expenditure versus security concerns
During the proceedings, Batra argued that the requested records were relevant to understanding how public money was spent on the Prime Minister’s foreign visits. He maintained that the request was driven by public interest and concerned private individuals accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel.
The High Court, however, found that the use of public funds did not automatically make every associated record suitable for public disclosure.
It held that expenditure on official foreign visits, by itself, could not justify releasing information capable of exposing or undermining the security arrangements established for those journeys.
Finding the CIC’s direction to be erroneous, the Court set aside its order requiring disclosure of the SFR-II records.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between public accountability over government expenditure and access to operational information that could affect the safety of the country’s highest constitutional officeholder.