Can the public see who flew with the Prime Minister on an Air Force aircraft? Not under the RTI Act, the Delhi High Court has held: Special Flight Returns of such visits are foreign travel records exempt from RTI, as disclosure could affect national security and the Prime Minister’s physical safety.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had told the Indian Air Force to give an RTI applicant certified copies of Special Flight Returns (SFR) Part II for the Prime Minister’s foreign visits on IAF aircraft. The Air Force, the Court held, was justified in refusing the information under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [The Central Public Information Officer, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd.)].
Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the oral judgment of 15 October 2026, allowing W.P.(C) 10165/2020. Pratima N. Lakra, Central Government Standing Counsel, with Advocate Shailendra Kumar Mishra, appeared for the Air Force, and Advocates Prasanna S., Injila Muslim Zaidi, Ashish Reddy, Prasanna Balakumar and Ishita Tulsyan for the respondent.
From an RTI request to the CIC
Retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra filed his RTI application on 5 June 2018, asking for information on each foreign visit of the Prime Ministers of India on IAF aircraft since 1 April 2013. The Air Force answered on 10 July 2018: it had earlier supplied details of visits from 26 May 2014 to 6 June 2016, Dr Manmohan Singh had made no air travel on IAF aircraft from 1 April 2013 to 25 May 2014, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi had made only three visits between 4 June 2016 and 9 July 2018.
Copies of SFR Parts I and II, which record aircraft and aircrew details and the full entourage, Special Protection Group personnel included, were refused under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e). The First Appellate Authority upheld the refusal on 20 September 2018.
On a second appeal (CIC/IAIRF/A/2018/632874), the CIC directed on 8 July 2020 that certified copies of available and relevant SFR-II be provided. The Air Force went to the High Court, which stayed that order on 11 December 2020 and issued notice to Commodore Batra.
What each side said
For the Air Force, SFR Part II carries sensitive particulars: passenger names, designations, identification numbers, flight references, passenger strength and agency details. Even with the names of security personnel redacted, it argued, the material could be collated with what is in the public domain to reconstruct the Prime Minister’s security arrangements and patterns of deployment.
Commodore Batra’s position was that his request concerns the expenditure of public funds on the Prime Minister’s foreign visits, a matter of significant public interest. His counsel said he sought details of private persons accompanying the Prime Minister at public expense, not the identities of security personnel.
Why redaction did not answer the concern
The Court accepted the Air Force’s submission that blacking out names alone would not remove the risk, since successive passenger manifests could allow security arrangements to be pieced together. On the limits of judicial review here, Justice Mahajan said:
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.
No sufficient larger public interest had been shown, in the Court’s view:
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 exemptions in play
Section 8(1)(a) exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State; Section 8(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Relying on Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, the Court noted that these clauses are absolute exemptions that do not yield merely to a larger public interest, and that Section 8(2) gives the public authority a discretion rather than the citizen an enforceable right.
It also drew on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 on balancing transparency against other public interests, including the confidentiality of sensitive information.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Holds DVAC Cannot Claim Blanket Exemption From RTI Act In Corruption Cases
The result
The CIC erred in directing disclosure of SFR-II even after redacting the names and identifying particulars of security personnel, the Court concluded, and the Air Force was justified in invoking Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g). The petition was allowed, the CIC order of 8 July 2020 was set aside and pending applications were disposed of. The ruling rests on the exemptions pleaded in this case and the material the Air Force placed before the Court.
What the ruling shows
The judgment shows how the RTI Act’s security exemptions, which the Supreme Court has treated as absolute, apply to records tied to the Prime Minister’s travel, and how far courts defer to security agencies on what may endanger a protectee. It also shows that the use of public funds does not, by itself, displace those exemptions where the Court accepts that disclosure could compromise security arrangements. Before reaching its conclusion, the Court recorded both the Air Force’s security objections and the applicant’s public-interest case.
Case Title: The Central Public Information Officer, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd.) [W.P.(C) 10165/2020]
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC, with Shailendra Kumar Mishra for the petitioner; Prasanna S., Injila Muslim Zaidi, Ashish Reddy, Prasanna Balakumar and Ishita Tulsyan for the respondent