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

Order Date: June 18, 2026

Case Overview

The Appellate Authority heard an appeal (No. 6894 of 2026) filed by Poonam against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai regarding responses to an RTI application dated April 22, 2026. The appellant had sought information through 14 specific queries primarily concerning SEBI's internal procedures, departmental responsibilities, and handling of investor grievances.

The key queries included: (1) Legal provisions allowing SEBI officials to disobey directions or attach false documents; (2) Provisions under which specific CPGRAMS applications (DOEAF/E/2025/0001195, DOEAF/E/2026/0000215, DOEAF/E/2026/0000415) and emails were handled; (3) Dates and modes of providing Benpos photocopies and Excel files for Bajaj Hindustan shares; (4) Department responsible for registration and supervision of market intermediaries for equity; (5) Department responsible for action against intermediaries; (6) Departmental assignments of specific officials (Mr. Surendra Gangavarapu, Mr. Krishnanad Raghawan, Mr. Vijayakant K. Verma, Mr. Tunhin Kanta Pandey); (7) Supreme Court or Central Government orders that SEBI is not bound to follow; (8) Circulars authorizing officials to handle applications outside their department; (9) Prescribed format of Benpos; (10) Entities responsible for maintaining Benpos records; (11) Regulatory bodies integrated with RTI portal; (12) RTI portal integration of NSE, BSE, NSDL, CDSL; (13) Public authority arranging information from regulatory bodies; (14) Officials permitted to handle investor applications offline.

SEBI's CPIO responded that queries 1, 7, 8, and 13 sought clarification/opinion rather than information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Queries 2, 9, 10, and 12 sought information not available with SEBI. For query 3, the appellant was directed to CPGRAMS portal. Queries 4, 5, and 6 directed to information available on SEBI website. Queries 11 and 14 were deemed vague and not specific.

The Appellate Authority examined each category of queries and upheld SEBI's responses based on legal precedents. For clarification/opinion queries (1,7,8,13), the authority cited Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited where CIC held that CPIOs cannot create, interpret, or compile information as desired by appellants. For non-available information (2,9,10,12), the authority referenced Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay where Supreme Court held there is no obligation to collect non-available information, and Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI where CIC stated CPIOs cannot invent information. For publicly available information (4,5,6), the authority cited Registrar of Companies vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Shri K vs. Shri M K Bagri establishing no obligation to provide publicly available information. For vague queries (11,14), the authority referenced Mr. T. V. Sundaresan vs. CPIO, SEBI where CIC held information must be specific and believed to exist.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, finding no deficiency in SEBI's responses. The authority determined that SEBI properly applied RTI Act provisions and relevant judicial precedents in handling the application. No further action was required from SEBI.

Topics: RTI Appeal, SEBI Procedures, Investor Grievance