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

Order Date: September 09, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Rajendra Kumar Saraogi, filed an appeal (No. 7045 of 2026) against the response from the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, to his RTI application dated June 26, 2026 (received July 07, 2026). The application sought extensive information and clarifications concerning a specific arbitration case (No. 74540, R. Saraogi & Co. vs. Girdhari Mal Choraria) and the subsequent treatment of the defaulting member's assets by the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE). The queries focused on the recognition of arbitration awards dated December 7, 1989, and September 18, 2008; the default status of Girdhari Mal Choraria; the disposition of his security deposit and membership unit (valued at ~₹70 lakhs); and the rules and application of the CSE's Settlement Guarantee Fund (SGF) concerning arbitration awards.

The CPIO, SEBI, responded on August 05, 2026. For queries 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10, the CPIO stated that the specific information sought was not maintained by SEBI in its normal course of regulating the securities market and was therefore not available. For queries 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11, the CPIO stated that these were in the nature of seeking clarifications, opinions, or explanations regarding arbitration award utilization, SGF, and forfeited membership and thus did not constitute 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant was directed to the CSE's bye-laws for SGF disbursement rules and to Chapter 3 of the SEBI Master Circular for Stock Exchanges Clearing Corporations dated December 30, 2024, for details on Core SGF.

The Appellate Authority, Ruchi Chojer, concurred with the CPIO's response. Citing the Hon'ble Central Information Commission's (CIC) order in Lakshminarayanan R vs. SEBI, it was upheld that a public authority can only provide information that is existent and available in its records, which the specific data requested was not. Citing the CIC's order in Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, it was further upheld that the RTI Act does not obligate a CPIO to provide clarifications, opinions, or to interpret or create information based on existing records.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the CPIO's response and ruled that there was no need to interfere with the original decision. The appellant's request for information and clarification was not granted.

Topics: RTI Appeal, Stock Exchange Arbitration