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

Order Date: September 22, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Sanjay Shah (Appellant) against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Respondent) regarding an RTI application dated August 08, 2026 (received through RTI MIS portal). The appellant sought extensive documentation related to his grievance bearing Registration No. PMOPG/E/2024/0044124 concerning Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited (GNFC). Specifically, he requested certified copies of: (1) communications received by SEBI from PMO or other authorities regarding the grievance, (2) all communications issued by SEBI to GNFC, (3) all responses from GNFC to SEBI, (4) subsequent correspondence between SEBI and GNFC, (5) internal notes/orders recording action taken on PMO-forwarded complaint, and (6) a date-wise chronology of correspondence/actions.

The respondent (CPIO, SEBI) denied the information vide letter dated August 25, 2026, citing exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. SEBI contended that the information was provided by the regulated entity (GNFC) to the regulator in a fiduciary relationship, constituting regulatory inputs pertaining to internal functioning and decision-making processes.

The Appellate Authority examined the application, response, and appeal (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00328 filed on August 27, 2026). The authority concurred with the respondent's position, noting that SEBI receives various documents from entities in 'fiduciary relationship'. The order referenced two key precedents: (1) the Supreme Court of India's judgment in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011, dated September 2, 2011), which defined information given in confidence expecting confidentiality as fiduciary information; and (2) the Central Information Commission's order in Mr. Ashok Kumar Rajak vs. CPIO, SEBI (dated December 21, 2021), which held that investigation reports, file notings, directions, and third-party communications held by regulatory agencies are barred from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the CPIO's decision. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the response and determined that no interference was warranted. The requested information remains exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Topics: RTI Appeal, Regulatory Confidentiality, SEBI Process