Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Order on Disclosure of PMs' Foreign Travel Records in IAF Aircraft
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Indian Air Force to disclose detailed records relating to the foreign travel of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Indian Air Force aircraft. The court held that such disclosure could compromise national security and endanger the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister.
The case arose from an RTI application filed in June 2018 by retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra. He sought details of foreign visits undertaken by Indian Prime Ministers on Indian Air Force aircraft between April 2013 and June 2018. Specifically, the applicant requested information contained in Special Flight Returns (SFR) Part I and Part II, which include details of the aircraft, aircrew, and the entire entourage, including names of all Special Protection Group (SPG) personnel travelling with the Prime Minister.
While the Indian Air Force provided information about certain visits, it refused to disclose SFR Part I and Part II details, citing security concerns and invoking the exemption for information held in a fiduciary capacity. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Air Force maintained that disclosure of such information could jeopardise national security.
However, the CIC directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of available and relevant SFR-II records after redacting the names of security personnel. This decision prompted the CPIO to approach the Delhi High Court challenging the CIC’s order.
During the hearing, the applicant’s counsel argued that the information sought related to the expenditure of public funds on the Prime Minister’s foreign visits and was therefore in the larger public interest. It was clarified that the request concerned private individuals accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel per se.
Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the matter, observed that the potential implications of such disclosure for national security and the security apparatus accompanying the Prime Minister could not be disregarded. The court held that the High Court or the CIC cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent security agencies regarding whether disclosure of particular information could jeopardise national security or endanger the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister.
The court emphasised that such an assessment falls primarily within the domain of the agencies entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the security of the Prime Minister, and that the court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent security agencies.
The Delhi High Court further noted that 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. It concluded that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of the SFR-II records and therefore set aside the CIC’s order.
The Central Government Standing Counsel, Pratima N Lakra, and advocate Shailendra Kumar Mishra appeared for the Indian Air Force. The applicant, Commodore Lokesh Batra, was represented by advocates Prasanna S, Injila Muslim Zaidi, Ashish Reddy, Prasanna Balakumar, and Ms. Ishita Tulsyan.
The court’s order, dated October 15, 2026, affirms that the exemption under the Right to Information Act for information whose disclosure could prejudicially affect national security or endanger the life or physical safety of an individual applies in this case, and that the determination of such risk by security agencies is not subject to judicial re-evaluation on the merits.