PM’s foreign-flight manifests withheld over security risks, Delhi High Court rules

The respondent sought, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), information concerning each foreign visit of the Prime Ministers of India on Indian Air Force aircraft from 1 April 2013, including copies of the relevant Special Flight Returns (SFRs), Parts I and II.

The CPIO declined to disclose the SFRs, citing statutory exemptions; the First Appellate Authority upheld the denial.

On the respondent’s second appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed disclosure of available and relevant SFR-II records.

The CPIO challenged that direction, contending that the records contained particulars relating to the aircraft, aircrew, passengers and security personnel, and that disclosure could compromise security. The respondent argued that the request concerned public expenditure and that he did not seek the identities of security personnel.

1. Whether disclosure of the SFR-II records, even with security personnel’s names and identifying particulars redacted, was exempt under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act because it could prejudice national security or endanger a person’s life or physical safety.

2. Whether the CIC was justified in directing disclosure on the basis of the respondent’s asserted public interest in information concerning expenditure on the Prime Minister’s foreign visits.

Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect, among other interests, the security or strategic interests of the State; Section 8(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would endanger any person’s life or physical safety.

In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Supreme Court held that the RTI Act must be construed to balance transparency with other protected public interests, including confidentiality of sensitive information.

In Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Court treated Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) as exemptions without an express larger-public-interest qualification, while explaining that Section 8(2) permits, but does not compel, a public authority to disclose exempt information where public interest outweighs the harm.

Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi establishes that Section 8(1)(g) may apply where the authority considers that disclosure presents a danger to life or physical safety.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s case that SFR-II contains interconnected particulars—including designations, appointments, identification numbers, flight references, passenger strength and agency details—which could be correlated with public-domain information to reconstruct the composition of the Prime Minister’s entourage and infer security-deployment patterns.

It therefore considered that redacting names and direct identifiers would not necessarily remove the security risk. The Court held that the competent security authorities’ assessment of the potential threat fell primarily within their domain and should not be displaced by the Court or the CIC.

It also found that the fact that public funds were spent on the visits, without more, did not establish a sufficient public interest to warrant disclosure of information carrying the identified security risks.

It held that the asserted public interest in expenditure did not justify the CIC’s disclosure direction.

The petition was allowed, the CIC’s order was set aside, and pending applications were disposed of.