The Delhi High Court has held that details of the Special Branch manual, which contains sensitive and confidential information, cannot be brought into public domain under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.

The high court said disclosing such information will not only compromise the functioning of the Special Branch of Delhi Police, but could also jeopardise ongoing and future investigations, adding that it falls within the scope of 'exempted information' under the RTI Act.

Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a petition seeking to provide under RTI the certified copy of the complete Special Branch manual with all annexures/latest rulings/notifications on passport verification as on February 3, 2016.

"In the opinion of the court, the details contained in the Special Branch Manual, by virtue of their confidential nature, cannot be brought into public domain.

"Such procedures, while operational in nature, may also reveal tactical insights into how law enforcement agencies function in sensitive areas, and their disclosure could compromise the integrity of such processes," the high court said.

The court also noted that given the confidential nature of these procedures, it was of the view that the reliance placed by the Special Branch of Delhi Police on Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, while denying the information sought, was "justified".

"Disclosing such information will not only compromise the functioning of the Special Branch, but could also jeopardise ongoing and future investigations. Thus, the decision of the CIC to exempt the disclosure of this classified information under the RTI Act is well-founded and justified," it said.

In his RTI application of 2016, petitioner Harkishan Das Nijhawan sought several information from the Special Branch, including a certified copy of its manual which outlines procedural norms for passport verification.

While all other queries were answered, the authorities denied providing a copy of the Special Branch manual by invoking the exemptions under the RTI Act.

The petitioner challenged the denial of information before the appellate authorities before moving the Central Information Commission (CIC) which also held that the information sought was indeed classified and exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act.

Nijhawan then approached the high court challenging the CIC order.

Under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, authorities are exempted from giving information that could prejudice the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, or the strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the State.

The court, which acknowledged the petitioner’s interest in seeking transparency in government operations, said the need to protect sensitive information that could compromise national security and law enforcement procedures must be borne in mind.

The court also said it was cognisant of the public interest in knowing the operational framework governing the passport verification process, however, it must be balanced with the State’s interest in safeguarding security-related procedures.

"Information linked to national security, or which could potentially impede enforcement operations, cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. The operational manuals detailing sensitive protocols fall within the realm of information that is inherently confidential.

"The information concerning law enforcement operations, especially those involving national security considerations, falls under the purview of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act," it said.

The court also noted that the manual outlines the procedure for conducting character and antecedent verification of the passport applicants, a process which must be inherently kept confidential to ensure the integrity of law enforcement operations.

This manual includes specific steps and methods employed by the Special Branch to verify personal particulars and background information, all of which are classified and treated as confidential by the very nature of the work, it said.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.