Justice Amit Mahajan, in a judgment delivered on October 15, held that disclosure of sensitive flight information could compromise security arrangements surrounding the Prime Minister and potentially endanger his life. The court upheld the Air Force’s refusal to release the documents under the Right to Information Act.
The judgment allowed a petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer of the Directorate of Personal Services at Air Headquarters, challenging the commission’s July 8, 2020, directive to provide certified copies of Special Flight Returns, Part II, relating to the prime ministers’ overseas journeys.
The court ruled that the commission had erred in ordering disclosure even after directing the removal of names and identifying particulars of security personnel. Such redactions, it observed, would not necessarily eliminate the risks associated with releasing operational information.
The records contain details concerning aircraft, aircrew, passengers, flight references and security personnel accompanying the Prime Minister. The Air Force argued that these particulars, when combined with information already publicly available, could reveal patterns of security deployment and arrangements for official travel.
Justice Mahajan accepted the security concerns and held that the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act were applicable. These provisions protect information whose disclosure could prejudice national security or endanger an individual’s life or physical safety.
The court also rejected the argument that expenditure of public money on overseas visits automatically justified disclosure of the requested documents.
“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 judgment stated.
The proceedings originated from an RTI application submitted on June 5, 2018, by retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra. He sought information about foreign visits undertaken by prime ministers aboard Air Force aircraft from April 1, 2013, until the date of his application.
Batra maintained that the information concerned the use of public resources and was therefore of substantial public interest. He specifically sought details of private individuals accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel responsible for protection.
The Air Force opposed disclosure, arguing that the documents contained operational and security information extending beyond passenger identities. It maintained that removing individual names would not prevent sensitive details from being reconstructed through comparison with other available information.
Justice Mahajan observed that neither the High Court nor the information commission could substitute its assessment for that of competent security agencies regarding potential threats arising from disclosure.
The judgment emphasised that determining whether particular information could jeopardise national security or the Prime Minister’s physical safety fell primarily within the responsibilities of agencies entrusted with protecting the country’s highest executive office.
The court further held that the right to information was not absolute and must operate within statutory limitations protecting security and other legally recognised interests.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Supreme Court of India versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Justice Mahajan examined the scope of exemptions relating to national security and threats to personal safety.
The court found that Batra had not established sufficient grounds to require disclosure despite the identified security concerns. It consequently concluded that the Air Force had legitimately invoked the statutory exemptions.
The commission’s original direction followed Batra’s unsuccessful departmental appeal against the Air Force’s refusal to provide copies of the Special Flight Returns. The first appellate authority had rejected his appeal in September 2018, prompting him to approach the commission.
During the initial RTI proceedings, the Air Force had supplied certain information about official overseas travel. It stated that Manmohan Singh had undertaken no journeys aboard Air Force aircraft between April 1, 2013, and May 25, 2014.
The Air Force also provided information concerning Modi’s journeys, identifying three visits aboard its aircraft during a specified period. However, it maintained its refusal to furnish the underlying Special Flight Returns, distinguishing general travel information from detailed operational records.
The High Court’s order disposed of the pending applications connected with the Air Force’s petition, registered as W. P.(C) 10165/2020.
