The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing disclosure of information under RTI related to foreign visits of the prime minister on Indian Air Force aircraft, considering the potential implications for national security and the life and physical safety of the prime minister.
The High Court said no sufficient larger public interest has been demonstrated by the RTI applicant to warrant disclosure of these particulars.
"The mere fact that public funds have been expended on the foreign visits of the prime minister does not, by itself, justify disclosure of information which may compromise the security arrangements put in place for such visits," Justice Amit Mahajan said in an order passed on October 15.
"In the absence of any demonstrated larger public interest that outweighs these concerns, disclosure of the information sought cannot be directed," the order said.
The High Court further opined that the CIC has erred in directing disclosure of the Special Foreign Returns (SFR) - II relating to the foreign visits of the prime minister after redaction of the names and identifying particulars of security personnel.
"The petitioner (Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, India Air Force) was justified in invoking the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act to deny disclosure of the aforesaid information, in view of the potential implications for national security and the life and physical safety of the prime minister, as specifically pointed out by the petitioner," it said while allowing the Air Force's petition challenging the CIC order.
SFR contains sensitive information relating to the foreign visits of the Prime Minister of India, including details of the aircraft, aircrew, passengers and accompanying entourage.
The court was hearing a plea filed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force, challenging a July 2020 order of the CIC directing it to provide certified copies of available and relevant SFR-II records.
The records were sought by retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra, who had filed an RTI application seeking information concerning foreign visits undertaken by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on IAF aircraft between April 1, 2013, and June 5, 2018.
The Air Force informed the applicant that there had been 'NIL' air travel of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from April 1, 2013, till May 25, 2014, by IAF aircraft.
From June 4, 2016, till July 9, 2018, only three visits were undertaken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on IAF aircraft, it said.
The Air Force, however, denied the request for the SFR records, citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The CIC, in the appeal order, directed the IAF to give the desired information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the authorities then approached the High Court challenging the direction.
Before the High Court, the Air Force contended that the records contained sensitive details, including passenger particulars, aircraft and aircrew details, flight references, passenger strength, agency particulars and information concerning the prime minister's security personnel.
It argued that even if the names of security personnel were redacted, the remaining details could be correlated with information available in the public domain to reconstruct aspects of the prime minister's security arrangements and reveal patterns of security deployment.
The application, however, argued that the information concerned expenditure incurred on the prime minister's foreign visits using public funds and was, therefore, a matter of significant public interest.
He said he was interested in obtaining details of private persons accompanying the prime minister at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel.
The High Court, in its order, observed that the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other public interests, including the confidentiality of sensitive information.
It said the 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 prime minister.
“Such an assessment falls primarily within the domain of the agencies entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the security of the prime minister,” the court said.
