Delhi High Court Allows Withholding of PM's Special Flight Returns Under RTI on Security Grounds
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Special Flight Returns (SFR-II) containing details of the Prime Minister's foreign air travel can be withheld under the Right to Information Act, 2005, where disclosure could jeopardise national security or endanger the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the Central Information Commission's (CIC) order dated 8 July 2020 that had directed disclosure of the records.
The case arose from an RTI request seeking information about foreign visits undertaken by Prime Ministers of India in Indian Air Force aircraft from 1 April 2013 onwards. The respondent specifically asked for copies of Parts I and Part II of the SFR relating to visits by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Indian Air Force provided some travel information but refused to disclose the SFRs, citing the sensitive nature of the records and exemptions under the RTI Act. The first appellate authority upheld the denial, but the CIC later directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of the available and relevant SFR-II records. The Central Public Information Officer then approached the Delhi High Court.
The Court noted that while the RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability, the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other public interests, especially national security and confidentiality. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which emphasised a reasonable and balanced approach. The Air Force contended that SFR-II records contain interconnected particulars such as passenger names, designations, appointments, identification numbers, flight references, passenger strength and agency details. It argued that even after redacting direct identifiers, disclosure could allow reconstruction of sensitive security arrangements by correlating the information with material already in the public domain. The Court accepted this submission.
The Court observed that Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act exempts information that would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, its relations with foreign States, or lead to incitement of an offence. Section 8(1)(g) exempts information that would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Relying on Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, the Court held that the CIC and the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of competent security agencies on whether disclosure could jeopardise national security or endanger the Prime Minister. Such an assessment falls primarily within the domain of agencies responsible for the Prime Minister's security.
The Court further held that the expenditure of public funds on foreign visits, by itself, did not establish sufficient larger public interest to justify disclosure of information that could compromise security arrangements. It stated that redacting the names of security personnel alone could not eliminate the potential risks to the Prime Minister's security.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the CIC's order dated 8 July 2020. It held that the Air Force was justified in invoking Section 8(1)(a) and (g) of the RTI Act in view of the potential implications for national security and the Prime Minister's life and physical safety. The judgment was authored by Justice Amit Mahajan.
Source: SCC Times