Authority: Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Securities and Exchange Board of India

Order Date: October 12, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Vishnu Mohan Pathak against the response of the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai to his RTI application dated nil (received by SEBI on July 30, 2026). The application sought detailed information about SEBI's Recruitment Exercise 2025, specifically regarding the interview process for his stream. The appellant filed his first appeal on September 14, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/P/26/0065), which was received by the Appellate Authority on September 18, 2026.

The appellant had requested four categories of information:

1. Certified copies of administrative guidelines, circulars, instructions, scoring rubrics, or manuals governing mark allocation during Phase III personal interviews

2. The exact number of marks awarded to him specifically for "Post-Qualification Work Experience" or "Higher Academic Qualifications" and the evaluation criteria

3. A copy of the final, consolidated interview tabulation sheet for all candidates in his stream (with personal identities redacted)

4. The official designations/professional capacities of the interview panel members

SEBI's CPIO had denied most information, citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act for queries 1 and 4 (pertaining to internal functioning), stating query 2 sought clarification/opinion rather than "information" as defined under Section 2(f), and noted that relevant information including marks of 135 selected candidates was already published on SEBI's website for query 3.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority, Ruchi Chojer, dismissed the appeal and upheld SEBI's responses in their entirety:

  • For query 1: Upheld denial under Section 8(1)(a), citing the Supreme Court's observation in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya about maintaining balance between transparency and efficient operation of public authorities
  • For query 2: Confirmed this sought clarification/opinion, not "information" under RTI Act, referencing the CIC's order in Azad Singh vs. CPIO that CPIOs cannot create or interpret information
  • For query 3: Noted that marks of 135 selected candidates were already published on SEBI website, requiring no further intervention
  • For query 4: Upheld denial under Section 8(1)(g), citing Supreme Court judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Delhi High Court judgment in Mukesh Kumar case that disclosure of panel details could endanger physical safety of members

The appeal was dismissed with no further action required.

Topics: RTI Process, SEBI Recruitment, Information Disclosure