SEBI Dismisses RTI Appeal on BRSR Reporting Authorities

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

Order Date: June 23, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant filed an appeal (No. 6906 of 2026) against SEBI's response to their Right to Information (RTI) application dated April 30, 2026. The appeal specifically contested the response to query numbers 2 and 3 from the original application. These queries sought: 1) details of the Appellate Authority and/or Adjudicating Officer within SEBI to be approached in cases involving irregularities or grievances related to BRSR (Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting) reporting, and 2) the official contact details (designation, office address, email ID, and phone number) of these authorities.

The respondent (SEBI) had responded on May 26, 2026, stating that these queries were not clear and specific and were in the nature of seeking clarification or opinion. SEBI contended that such queries could not be construed as "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Notwithstanding this, SEBI provided guidance by informing the appellant that the appointment of an Adjudicating Officer only occurs when relevant enforcement actions are initiated, upon conclusion of the examination of a matter.

The appellant's ground for appeal was that they were provided incomplete, misleading, or false information.

The Appellate Authority, presided over by Ruchi Chojer, perused the application, the response, and the appeal. The authority agreed with SEBI's stance, finding that the appellant's queries were indeed in the nature of seeking clarification or opinion and did not constitute a request for 'information' as defined by the RTI Act. Consequently, the respondent had no obligation to provide such clarification under the Act.

The authority relied on a precedent from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the matter of Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (order dated March 23, 2021). This ruling established that a CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) is not supposed to create information, interpret information, or compile information as per the desire of an appellant. Reasons, opinions, or advice can only be provided if they are already available on the record of the public authority.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in SEBI's response and saw no need to interfere with its decision. The order affirms that SEBI's original response and the guidance provided were appropriate.

Topics: RTI Act, SEBI Compliance, BRSR Reporting