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

Order Date: July 17, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Jagadish against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai regarding an RTI application (transferred from Department of Economic Affairs to SEBI on May 25, 2026). The appellant sought information concerning enforcement and recovery proceedings in the matter of SMS Techsoft (India) Ltd., specifically raising questions about:

  • Why MNCL faced zero fines despite being called the "real perpetrator"
  • Why Kotak Mahindra Bank faced zero action for alleged forgery, impersonation, and KYC failures regarding account number 67301002xxxx opened at a fake Ahmedabad address using Jagadish's identity
  • Why false parentage attribution was made in SEBI's database recording V. Jagadish as 'legal heir' of Mahesh Chunnilal Shah

The appellant also requested immediate stay on recovery/auction proceedings, refund of Rs. 26.5 lakh extracted from him, return of Rs. 50 crore ancestral property auctioned, investigation and penalties against multiple entities, and compensation of Rs. 900 crore for wrongful prosecution.

SEBI's CPIO responded on June 19, 2026, stating that the requested information was not available with SEBI. The appellant filed an appeal on the same date (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00225) on the ground that he was refused access to the information.

The Appellate Authority considered precedents from the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, including:

  • Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (July 8, 2013): CPIO cannot invent information if not available in records
  • Dr. D. V. Rao vs Shri Yashwant Singh & Anr. (April 21, 2006): RTI Act does not oblige public authorities to answer qualitative queries about their actions

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in SEBI's response since the information was not available in their records, and the RTI Act does not require answering qualitative questions about the nature and quality of actions taken by public authorities.

Topics: RTI Appeal, SEBI Enforcement, Market Manipulation Case