‘Public Funds Alone Don’t Justify Disclosure’: Delhi HC Cites Security Concerns Over PM’s Foreign Travel Records

Setting aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the disclosure of records related to such visits, the court observed that the expenditure of public funds alone does not justify revealing information that could compromise security arrangements. It held that no larger public interest had been established to outweigh these concerns.

“The mere fact that public funds have been expended on the foreign visits of the Hon’ble 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,” the court held.

The court was hearing a plea regarding an RTI application filed seeking information in connection with each foreign visit undertaken by the Prime Ministers of India on Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft from April 1, 2013, until the date of the application, i.e., June 15, 2018.

“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,” the court ruled refering to the judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011).

The application was denied, and the first appeal was also dismissed. However, the second appeal was allowed by the CIC, which directed the CPIO to provide certified copies.

While setting aside the order, the court observed that “in the present case, no sufficient larger public interest has been demonstrated to warrant disclosure of the particulars in question”.

The court held that the CIC erred in directing the disclosure of the SFR-II relating to the foreign visits of the Hon’ble Prime Minister after redacting the names and identifying particulars of security personnel.