HC sets aside order directing details of foreign travel by Modi, Manmohan Singh be made public

The Delhi High Court rejected the requirement that the Indian Air Force release detailed records of foreign travel by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It set aside the earlier Central Information Commission order. The decision matters because it places security concerns above automatic disclosure of travel details funded by taxpayers.

The requested records covered aircraft, crew, entourage members and security personnel travelling with the prime ministers. The Air Force had argued that such information was extremely sensitive because it related directly to the prime minister’s security arrangements. The court accepted that concern.

The case had been before the court since 2020, when it stayed the commission’s disclosure order. The final ruling says public spending alone does not justify releasing information that might weaken security arrangements. The records therefore will not be disclosed under the earlier order.

Lokesh K Batra, a former Navy officer and Right to Information activist, requested detailed records of foreign visits taken by prime ministers on Indian Air Force aircraft. His application sought information connected with the flights, not merely destinations or dates. The request therefore reached into operational and security-related details.

Specifically, he asked for details of the aircraft, the crew and the entourage travelling with the prime ministers. He also sought the names of security personnel accompanying them. These categories could reveal how official travel and protection arrangements were organised.

The request covered visits by Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh between April 2013 and June 2018. The Indian Air Force challenged the Central Information Commission’s order requiring disclosure, calling the information extremely sensitive. The High Court ultimately set aside that order because of the possible security implications.

The requested records covered the period from April 2013 to June 2018. That span included foreign visits taken on Indian Air Force aircraft by two prime ministers. The length of the period is important because it covered travel associated with both Narendra Modi and his predecessor, Manmohan Singh.

Batra sought detailed information for those visits, including the aircraft used, the crew, the entourage and the names of security personnel. The request therefore applied across a substantial set of official journeys rather than one isolated trip. The article does not state how many visits were involved.

The dispute began when the Central Information Commission ordered disclosure. The Indian Air Force challenged that order, describing the information as extremely sensitive. The Delhi High Court had stayed the order in 2020 and later set it aside, citing risks to security arrangements.

Details about aircraft, crews, entourages and security personnel can expose how a prime minister’s foreign travel is organised. The court treated that information as connected to the protection arrangements put in place for official visits. Its concern was not simply financial secrecy, but the possible security consequences of revealing operational details.

For example, the requested information included the names of security personnel travelling with the prime ministers. It also covered the aircraft and crew involved. The Indian Air Force described these details as extremely sensitive because they related to the prime minister’s security arrangements. The court accepted that disclosure may compromise those arrangements.

The court also addressed the public-interest argument. It held that spending public funds on foreign travel does not automatically justify disclosure of information that could create a security risk. That principle allowed the High Court to set aside the Central Information Commission’s order.

The Central Information Commission, or CIC, is India’s central statutory body under the Right to Information framework. It helps enforce access to records held by central public authorities. People can approach the commission through appeals or complaints when information is denied, delayed or disputed. Its decisions can direct authorities to provide information, subject to legal exemptions.

Here, the CIC ordered the Indian Air Force to provide records about foreign visits by Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh. The requested material included aircraft, crew, entourage and security personnel details. The Air Force challenged the order, arguing that the information was extremely sensitive because it concerned prime ministerial security arrangements.

The Delhi High Court had stayed the CIC order in 2020. It later set the order aside. This shows that CIC decisions remain subject to judicial review, especially when disclosure may conflict with security protections recognised under the information law.

The petitioner, Lokesh K Batra, argued that the travel information should be public because the journeys involved expenditure from public funds. His reasoning was based on accountability: citizens should be able to examine how government money is used, especially for official foreign travel. He presented disclosure as serving the larger public interest.

The requested records went beyond total spending. They included aircraft, crew, entourage details and names of security personnel. That made the dispute more difficult because the same records that might illuminate public expenditure could also expose arrangements surrounding the prime ministers’ travel.

The court acknowledged the public-funds argument but rejected it as sufficient on its own. It held that spending public money does not automatically justify releasing information that may compromise security arrangements. The ruling therefore prioritised protection of the visits over disclosure under the earlier commission order.

India’s right-to-information framework is designed to let people examine records held by public authorities. It supports accountability and transparency, particularly when government decisions involve public money. However, the framework also recognises exemptions. Authorities may withhold information when disclosure could harm national security, public safety, or other protected interests, including certain personal information.

This case illustrates that balance. Batra sought records about publicly funded foreign travel, including aircraft, crew, entourage and security personnel. The Central Information Commission ordered disclosure, but the Indian Air Force argued that the details were extremely sensitive. The High Court concluded that release may compromise security arrangements for the visits.

The ruling does not make all government travel information secret. Instead, it rejects disclosure of these particular details under the earlier order. It also confirms that a public-interest argument must be weighed against security risks, and that courts can review information commission decisions.