Authority: Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India

Order Date: August 05, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Ravi Prakashkumar Shah against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, challenging the response to his RTI application dated June 09, 2026 (Appeal No. 6964 of 2026). The appellant sought extensive information across four broad categories:

1. Regulatory Framework & Specific Circular References: Requested copies or references to master circulars, guidelines, and communications governing commodity derivatives and stockbrokers from January 01, 2026, to March 31, 2026. Specific queries covered square-off timings, liquidation triggers, margin deficiencies, overnight position retention, the effect of client fund additions on RMS obligations, risk-management parameters, and record-keeping requirements for broker liquidation decisions.

2. Specific Correspondence, Surveillance & Regulatory Examination: Sought copies of any correspondence, complaints, examination reports, or surveillance reviews from January 01, 2026, to March 31, 2026, concerning communications from the All India Jewellers and Goldsmith Federation (AIJGF) about the GOLD26APR contract, and any reviews or communications between SEBI and MCX concerning abnormal premium behaviour or market dislocation in GOLD26APR.

3. Regulatory Actions, Inspection Findings & Enforcement Records: Requested statistical summaries, anonymized inspection findings, or copies of regulatory orders from the last ten years related to broker deficiencies in delayed square-off/liquidation and ineffective RMS controls during high volatility. Also sought copies of warning letters, adjudication orders, or enforcement actions on these topics.

4. Industry Guidance & Regulatory Studies: Asked for copies of any studies, committee reports, or policy assessments concerning industry liquidation practices, broker risk management during exceptional volatility, and futures-spot premium dislocations.

SEBI's CPIO responded on July 08, 2026. For Query 1, the respondent stated the information was available in the public domain on SEBI's website via the Master Circular for Commodity Derivatives and other circulars. For Query 2, SEBI stated it receives and examines complaints but any resulting regulatory actions are published on its website. For Query 3(a) and 3(c), the response deemed the queries vague and not constituting 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, though it noted details of regulatory actions are public. For Query 3(b) on anonymized inspection findings, SEBI denied the information under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, citing fiduciary capacity, commercial confidence, and intellectual property. For the statistical summaries part of Query 3(b), SEBI invoked Section 7(9), stating the information was not maintained in the requested format and collating it would disproportionately divert resources. For Query 4, the queries were again deemed vague and not specific.

The appellant filed an appeal on the ground of being refused access to the requested information.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the records, upheld SEBI's responses. For Query 1, it concurred that the information was publicly available and cited court and CIC rulings that there is no obligation to provide such information under the RTI Act. For Query 2 and the anonymized inspection findings in Query 3(b), the authority upheld the denial under Section 8(1)(e), citing SEBI's fiduciary relationship with entities it regulates and referencing Supreme Court and CIC precedents (including Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya, Mr. Ashok Kumar Rajak vs. CPIO, SEBI, and Shri Ravi Ramaiya vs. SEBI) that protect such confidential regulatory information from disclosure. For Queries 3(a), 3(c), and 4, the authority agreed they were vague and not specific, relying on the CIC's decision in Naresh Kadyan Vs. CPIO, Veterinary Council of India that queries must be clear and specific. For the statistical summaries part of Query 3(b), the authority upheld the use of Section 7(9), citing the Delhi High Court judgment in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and the CIC order in Mr. Deepak Girdhar vs. CPIO, SEBI, which state there is no obligation to create or collate information not readily available, especially if it would disproportionately divert resources.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in SEBI's response and declined to interfere with its decision. The appellant was directed to existing public resources on SEBI's website for enforcement orders.

Topics: RTI Act, Commodity Derivatives Regulation, SEBI Disclosure Policy