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

Order Date: July 22, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Harsh Vardhan Joshi (Appellant) against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), SEBI, Mumbai (Respondent) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant had filed an RTI application dated June 01, 2026, seeking information through the RTI MIS portal. SEBI responded to the application on June 22, 2026. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal dated June 23, 2026 (Registration No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00232), disputing the responses to query numbers 8, 9, and 11 specifically.

The disputed queries sought: 1) Applicable circulars, guidelines, SOPs, manuals, or internal instructions governing the processing and disposal of Second-Level Reviews under the SCORES framework (Query 8); 2) The prescribed timeline for disposal of Second-Level Review requests under the SCORES mechanism (Query 9); and 3) A copy of the approval, order, note, or record based on which a specific complaint was finally disposed of on May 21, 2026 (Query 11).

SEBI's respondent had informed the appellant that for queries 8 and 9, they could refer to SEBI Circular No. SEBI/HO/OIAE/IGRD/CIR/P/2023/156 dated September 20, 2023, available on the SEBI website. The appellant contended that this response was incomplete, misleading, or false, and that query 11 was not answered at all.

The Appellate Authority, perused the application, response, and appeal. Regarding queries 8 and 9, it concurred with the respondent, noting that the requested information was available in the public domain. It cited legal precedents, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Registrar of Companies & ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & anr. and the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri (CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, order dated April 12, 2007), which held that there is no obligation to provide information under the RTI Act if it is already publicly available. Consequently, it found no deficiency in SEBI's response to these queries.

However, regarding query 11, the Authority noted that the respondent had provided no specific reply. It found that this query had not been adequately answered.

Final Outcome

The appeal was disposed of. The application was remitted back to the respondent (SEBI's CPIO) for de novo (fresh) consideration solely of query number 11. The respondent was directed to send an appropriate response to the appellant in terms of the RTI Act within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the order. The responses to queries 8 and 9 were upheld.

Topics: RTI Appeal, SCORES Mechanism, SEBI Compliance