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

Order Date: July 28, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Deepanjan Guhamajumder against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of SEBI, Mumbai. The appellant had filed an RTI application on May 18, 2026, seeking information about actions taken by SEBI based on a petition he had filed against Archidply Industries Ltd on January 13, 2026. The petition alleged various offenses by the company, its directors, key managerial personnel, and auditors, including violations of SEBI (LODR) Regulations 2015, SEBI (Buy-Back of Securities) Regulations 2018, antitrust activities, business malpractices under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and other statutory non-compliances.

The CPIO, in its response dated June 17, 2026, informed that the contents of the complaint had been taken note of but stated that SEBI would neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation. The appellant filed this appeal on June 30, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00238) on the ground that he was refused access to the requested information.

The Appellate Authority examined the matter and found that the requested information is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding information that could impede the process of investigation or apprehension of offenders. The authority emphasized that maintaining confidentiality of examinations or investigations is crucial to prevent unwarranted market speculation, protect evidence collection, and avoid unnecessary harm to third parties.

The authority cited precedent decisions from the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (CIC), including Manju Devi v CPIO, SEBI (Order dated April 29, 2025), Arun Damodar Sawant vs CPIO, SEBI (order dated September 26, 2018), and Anju Sharma vs. CPIO, SEBI (order dated September 28, 2020), which had upheld similar denials of information regarding SEBI investigations.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the CPIO was upheld. The Appellate Authority found no need to interfere with the respondent's decision, concluding that the application had been adequately addressed. The practical consequence is that no information regarding any potential investigation into Archidply Industries Ltd will be disclosed to the appellant through the RTI mechanism.

Topics: SEBI Investigation, RTI Exemption, Corporate Governance