The Delhi High Court has upheld the denial of information relating to the foreign visit of the Prime Minister undertaken on Indian Air Force aircraft while observing that the Central Public Information Officer was justified in invoking the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act in view of the potential implications for national security and the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister.

The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution assailing the order passed by the Central Information Commission.

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan stated, “Additionally, in the present case, no sufficient larger public interest has been demonstrated to warrant disclosure of the particulars in question. The mere fact that public funds have been expended on the foreign visits of the Hon’ble Prime Minister does not, by itself, justify disclosure of information which may compromise the security arrangements put in place for such visits. In the absence of any demonstrated larger public interest that outweighs these concerns, disclosure of the information sought cannot be directed.”

“...in the opinion of this Court, the learned CIC erred in directing disclosure of the SFR-II relating to the foreign visits of the Hon’ble Prime Minister after redaction of the names and identifying particulars of security personnel. The petitioner 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 Hon’ble Prime Minister, as specifically pointed out by the petitioner”, it added.

Central Govt Standing Counsel Pratima N. Lakra represented the Petitioner while Advocate Prasanna S. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent had submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to the petitioner, seeking information in connection with each foreign visit of the Prime Ministers of India undertaken on Indian Air Force aircraft from April 1, 2013, till the date of the application. The respondent, not being satisfied with the denial of information regarding copies of SFRs Part-I & Part-II, in respect of each foreign visit of former Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Sh. Narendra Modi, undertaken by Indian Air Force aircraft, from April 1, 2013 till the date of application, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

The First Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal, noting that the petitioner had rightly denied the said information under Section 8(1)(a) and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the Central Information Commission. The Commission, vide the impugned order allowed the said appeal, directing the petitioner to provide certified copies of available and relevant SFR-II to the respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated that though the RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other rights and interests protected by law, including the right to privacy. “The purpose of the RTI Act is though to bring about transparency and accountability of public authorities, the same ought to be balanced with other public interests including confidentiality of sensitive information”, it added.

The Bench held that once the concerned authority was of the view that revealing certain information could jeopardise national security and the security of the Prime Minister, it was entitled to invoke the exemption under Section 8(1)(a) and Section 8(1)(g).

Referring to the judgment in Ref: Maj. Gen. V.K. Singh (Retd.) v. Union of India (2010), the Bench stated, “This 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 Hon’ble Prime Minister. Such an assessment falls primarily within the domain of the agencies entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the security of the Hon’ble Prime Minister and this Court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent security agencies.”

Thus, upholding the denial of disclosure of the information, in view of the potential implications for national security and the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order.

Cause Title: The Central Public Information Officer Directorate of Personal Services Air Headquarters Indian Air Force v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra Retd (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9404)

Appearance

Petitioner: Central Govt Standing Counsel Pratima N. Lakra, Advocates Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Anil Vashist

Respondent: Advocates Prasanna S., Injila Muslim Zaidi, Ashish Reddy, Prasanna Balakumar, Ishita Tulsyan

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Amit Mahajan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.