NEW DELHI, October 22 (Aalimi Nation) – The Delhi High Court has set aside an order that required the Indian Air Force to disclose records of the Prime Minister's foreign travel on its aircraft, holding that the PM IAF travel records could affect national security and the safety of the Prime Minister.
Justice Amit Mahajan, sitting alone, passed the order on October 15. It allowed a petition by the Air Force's Central Public Information Officer against a July 2020 direction of the Central Information Commission.
How the dispute began
The matter arose from a Right to Information application filed in June 2018 by retired Commodore Lokesh K. Batra. He sought details of foreign visits by Indian Prime Ministers aboard Air Force aircraft from April 2013 onwards, a period covering the tenures of Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi.
The Air Force provided information on some visits but declined to release the Special Flight Returns, which record the aircraft, the aircrew and the entire entourage, including the names of Special Protection Group personnel travelling with the Prime Minister. It cited security concerns and an exemption for information held in a fiduciary capacity.
On appeal, the Information Commission directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of the relevant returns with the names of security personnel redacted. The Air Force's information officer challenged that direction in the High Court. In December 2020, Justice Navin Chawla stayed the commission's order while the petition was pending.
What the court held
Justice Mahajan ruled that the Air Force was justified in refusing disclosure under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which protect national security and the life and physical safety of individuals. He found that removing names and identifying details of security personnel would not necessarily eliminate the risks.
The court said the assessment of such risks belongs primarily to the agencies responsible for the Prime Minister's security. It observed that the High Court or the Information Commission "cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent security agencies". On the consequences of disclosure, it said the "potential implications of such disclosure for national security... cannot be disregarded".
The public-money argument
Mr Batra had argued that the visits were funded from the public exchequer. The court held that the use of public funds on the Prime Minister's foreign visits does not, by itself, justify disclosing information that could compromise security arrangements. It also found that the applicant had not shown a larger public interest that would outweigh those concerns.
Why it matters
The ruling bears on how far the transparency law reaches into the movements and protection of the highest office. The petition set the applicant's argument about accountability for public spending against the Air Force's position that flight returns and entourage details bear on protection arrangements, and the court sided with the latter on the material before it.
The dispute has run for more than eight years, from the original application in 2018 to the final order this month. The full text of the order was not available to this newsroom at the time of writing, and the account above is based on reports of the judgment. It is not known whether the applicant will challenge the ruling.
