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

Order Date: November 06, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Rahul Bagrecha against the response of the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, to his RTI application dated September 09, 2026. The appellant had sought extensive information and certified copies of records pertaining to his multiple SCORES complaints (references: SEBIE/RJ26/JODH/034167/1, SEBIE/RJ26/JODH/034159/1, SEBIE/RJ26/JODH/034156/1, SEBIE/RJ26/JODH/034154/1, SEBIE/RJ26/JODH/034144/1, SEBIE/RJ26/JODH/041731/1) against Aurostar Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (SEBI RA Registration No. INH000021979). The queries specifically concerned the handling and disposal of these complaints, a Final Arbitral Award dated 14.08.2026 (Arbitration Case ID S040044, SMART ODR Ref. CDSL-IA-2026-03-985869), and any subsequent regulatory examination or action taken by SEBI against the Research Analyst based on the award's findings.

The Appellate Authority, Ruchi Choje, perused the application, the CPIO's response dated October 08, 2026, and the appeal. The authority concurred with the CPIO's responses, which were based on several grounds:

  • For queries 1-3 (seeking complete complaint files), it was held that all information is available electronically on the SCORES portal and no separate file notings are maintained. The authority cited a CIC decision (Lena Irene Mascarenhas vs. CPIO, SEBI) and a Bombay High Court judgment to state that reasons for a decision are not 'information' under the RTI Act.
  • For query 4 (seeking communications on the arbitral award), it was held that the information is not maintained by SEBI, citing a previous CIC order (Lakshminarayanan R vs. SEBI).
  • For query 5 (seeking internal notings post-award), the information was deemed exempt under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act as it pertains to SEBI's strategic internal functioning and could hamper its regulatory decision-making.
  • For queries 6, 7, 8, 9, 26, 27, 28, 29, & 30 (seeking confirmation, status, and details of regulatory action), the queries were deemed to be seeking clarifications or opinions, not 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. A CIC order (Azad Singh vs. CPIO) was cited to support this.
  • For queries 10-20 and 31-32 (seeking examination records on specific allegations against Aurostar), the CPIO's response that no inspection of the Research Analyst was conducted was deemed adequate.
  • For queries 21-25 (seeking information on compliance with the arbitral award), the information was held to be available to SEBI in a fiduciary capacity and thus exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, supported by a Supreme Court judgment (ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya) and a CIC order.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the CPIO's responses and upheld the denial of information based on the cited exemptions and legal precedents. The appellant is not entitled to receive the requested information from SEBI under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Topics: RTI Appeal, SEBI Complaints, Research Analyst Regulation