Delhi High Court backs IAF on PM Modi and Manmohan Singh travel records

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Indian Air Force’s decision to withhold detailed flight records of foreign visits undertaken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, ruling that safeguarding prime ministerial security and national interests supersedes disclosure under the Right to Information Act.

Setting aside a July 2020 order from the Central Information Commission (CIC), Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that transparency bodies and courts cannot override the judgement of defence agencies tasked with protecting the head of government. The decision firmly reinforces the operational confidentiality of India's elite security apparatus during official international missions.

Why the records were withheld

The dispute began after retired Commodore Lokesh Batra filed an RTI application in June 2018, seeking Special Flight Returns (SFR) Parts I and II for foreign trips on IAF aircraft between April 2013 and June 2018. While the IAF provided general information regarding prime ministerial visits, it declined to release the SFR documents.

The IAF maintained that the flight returns contain deeply sensitive operational data. Disclosing them would reveal:

• Specific aircraft configurations and flight paths
• Identifications, designations, and numbers of aircrew
• Deployment structures of the Special Protection Group (SPG)
• Travel manifests and institutional affiliations of accompanying personnel

The air force cautioned that piecing together such interconnected details alongside public data could expose patterns in the prime minister's security deployments abroad.

What the court decided

The CIC had previously directed the air force to release the SFR-II records after redacting the names of security officers. However, the High Court found that the CIC had erred, observing that merely scrubbing specific names would not mitigate the broader operational vulnerabilities created by publicising the logs.

Justice Mahajan made clear that while the applicant cited public spending on prime ministerial visits, financial transparency cannot compromise essential security protocols.

“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,” the court observed in its ruling.

The judge underlined that exemptions under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act shield sensitive state strategic interests, while Section 8(1)(g) safeguards personal physical safety. Pointing to Supreme Court precedent, the bench reaffirmed that the right to information is not absolute.

Crucially, the High Court held that neither judicial forums nor the CIC can substitute their own views for the specialised threat assessments made by competent defence authorities. Where designated agencies conclude that a release poses a danger to national security or to the life of the prime minister, that institutional verdict stands.

During the proceedings, Central Government Standing Counsel Pratima N Lakra and advocate Shailendra Kumar Mishra represented the Indian Air Force, while advocates Prasanna S and Injila Muslim Zaidi represented the applicant.