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

Order Date: October 12, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Suriyanarayanan Ramachandran, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on September 06, 2026. The application sought specific data on the number of complaints filed against ICICI Direct and other brokers cumulatively. The requested data was to be categorized by complaint type (e.g., non-execution of order, technical glitch) and for three distinct timelines: the past 10 years, the past 5 years, and from December 2024 onwards.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) at SEBI, Mumbai, responded on September 16, 2026, stating that the information sought was not maintained by SEBI in the manner or format specified by the appellant. Consequently, the information was declared unavailable.

The appellant filed a first appeal (No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00347) on September 16, 2026, on the ground that he was refused access to the requested information.

The Appellate Authority, in its reasoning, concurred with the CPIO's response. It cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors., which established that the RTI Act does not obligate a public authority to create, collect, or collate information that is not available with it. The authority also referenced a similar decision by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Prateek Tewari v. CPIO, SEBI, which supported the stance that information sought in a particular format cannot be directed to be disclosed if it is not available in that format.

Furthermore, the authority noted that the appellant had attempted to seek additional information at the appeal stage. Relying on the CIC's decision in Harish Prasad Divedi vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, it ruled that an information seeker cannot be allowed to expand the scope of an RTI enquiry during an appeal.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the CPIO's original response and upheld the decision that SEBI is not obligated to provide the information as it is not maintained in the requested categorized and cumulative format. There is no further action required from SEBI regarding this specific RTI request.

Topics: RTI Act, SEBI Compliance, Broker Complaints