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

Order Date: June 12, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Shanti Bai, an investor affected by the default of Karvy Stock Broking Ltd around November 2019, against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai. The appellant had filed an RTI application on May 02, 2026 (received through RTI MIS portal) seeking extensive information about her specific securities holdings and treatment of her account in the Karvy default case.

The appellant sought eight categories of information including: complete details of her securities holdings before Karvy's default; details of any pledging or unauthorized transfer of her securities; action taken by SEBI/depositories in relation to her account; details of shares transferred post-default; details of funds recovered/settled; current status of investments; copies of all records and correspondence; and specific information regarding her holdings of 8,000 shares of Aditya Birla Capital Limited, including whether these shares were pledged, transferred, recovered, and their current status.

SEBI's CPIO responded on May 14, 2026 stating that the information sought "is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market" and hence not available with SEBI. The appellant filed an appeal on the same day (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00177) expressing dissatisfaction with this response.

The Appellate Authority examined the application, response, and appeal, noting that the respondent had correctly informed that the requested information is not maintained by SEBI. The Authority referenced the Hon'ble Central Information Commission's decision in Lakshminarayanan R vs. SEBI (order dated February 09, 2023) which established that information must be existent and available in records to be disclosable under RTI Act, and in this case the desired information was not available in SEBI's records.

The Authority also addressed the appellant's contention that SEBI should have transferred the application to concerned public authority under section 6(3) of RTI Act. The order clarified that stock exchanges (NSE, BSE) and depositories (CDSL, NSDL) are not considered "public authorities" under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, citing decisions in R S Malik vs. CPIO, SEBI (April 27, 2023), Nayan Bhagvat Prasad Raval vs. CPIO, CDSL (February 20, 2017), and R.J. Uttamchandani Vs National Securities Depository Limited (June 19, 2009).

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, finding no deficiency in SEBI's response and no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Authority noted that claims related to defaulter brokers are handled by exchanges and advised the appellant to contact them for any queries related to the claim process.

Topics: RTI Appeal, Investor Protection, Broker Default