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 Suresh Kumar Vishnoi against the response provided by the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai to his RTI application dated May 12, 2026. The application sought detailed information regarding a complaint against Angel One concerning alleged abnormal execution/slippage in a SENSEX 83100 CE options trade that occurred on February 3, 2026, between 09:15:00 AM and 09:15:40 AM. The specific trade involved buying 5220 quantities at an average price of 524 on February 1, 2026, and selling at 668 on February 3, 2026. The SCORES Complaint Number was SEBIE/RJ26/JALO/015513/1.

The appellant requested nine categories of information including certified copies of complete order audit trails, tick-by-tick data, market depth, technical anomaly records, all documents submitted by Angel One, internal examination notes, applicable SEBI circulars, verification details, and the name of the examining authority.

SEBI's CPIO responded on June 1, 2026, stating that information for queries 1-3 was not available with SEBI. For queries 4 and 8, the respondent directed the appellant to the SCORES website where complaint status and Action Taken Report were accessible. For query 5, SEBI stated that the complaint handling process is electronic with all actions recorded in the system, and no separate internal file notings are maintained. For query 6, SEBI directed the appellant to publicly available SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 2016 and the SEBI Master Circular for Stock Brokers dated June 17, 2025. For query 7, SEBI stated that seeking clarification/opinion does not constitute "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The Appellate Authority, in its reasoning, relied on judicial precedents including the Supreme Court judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors which established that the RTI Act only provides access to existing information and does not obligate public authorities to collect or collate non-available information. The authority also cited the CIC decision in Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI which reinforced that CPIOs cannot invent information that is not in their possession.

For queries 4, 5, and 8, the authority found that SEBI adequately addressed these by directing the appellant to the electronic records available on the SCORES portal. For query 6, the authority cited the Delhi High Court judgment in Registrar of Companies & ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & anr. and CIC order in Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri, which established that information available in the public domain cannot be said to be held by the public authority, thus eliminating the obligation to provide it under RTI. For query 7, the authority cited the CIC order in Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited which clarified that queries seeking explanation/opinion/confirmation do not constitute "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and CPIOs are not required to analyze, interpret, or compile information as desired by applicants.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, finding no deficiency in SEBI's response. The authority determined that there was no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent CPIO, thereby upholding SEBI's original response to the RTI application.

Topics: RTI Appeal, Trade Execution Dispute, Regulatory Transparency