Case Details
The appeal was filed by Ashwill Serrao (Appellant) against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Respondent) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Appeal Number is 6872 of 2026. The order was issued by Ruchi Chojer, Appellate Authority under the RTI Act at SEBI, on June 04, 2026, in Mumbai. The original RTI application was dated April 10, 2026, and SEBI's response was dated May 07, 2026. The appeal itself was registered under Number SEBIH/A/E/26/00170. The case involves a complaint filed against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (NSE: ICICIGI) on March 31, 2026, concerning alleged false regulatory disclosures and violations of LODR Regulations related to non-disclosure of digital fraud and identity theft. There is no financial impact, penalty, or settlement amount mentioned in this order as it solely addresses the denial of information.
Persons Involved
- Ashwill Serrao: Appellant who filed the RTI application and subsequent appeal.
- CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai: Chief Public Information Officer at SEBI, who provided the initial response to the RTI application.
- Ruchi Chojer: The Appellate Authority under the RTI Act at SEBI who issued the dismissal order.
- The order also references officials from SEBI whose identities were withheld, and the Compliance Officer or Company Secretary of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, who allegedly submitted a response or clarification to SEBI.
Violations and Allegations
The underlying complaint alleged that ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited made false regulatory disclosures and violated LODR (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations. The specific allegations mentioned are:
- Non-disclosure of digital fraud and identity theft.
- Falsified regulatory filings.
- Omission of material information.
- The need to justify that a specific proposal (Proposal 4220340119) was not a fraudulent modification of an original contract.
This order does not confirm or investigate these allegations; it only addresses the request for information about SEBI's handling of such a complaint.
Penalties, Settlement Terms & Rulings
This order does not impose any penalties or dictate settlement terms on ICICI Lombard. Instead, it rules on the RTI appeal:
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The Appellate Authority upholds SEBI's (the respondent's) decision to deny the requested information.
- No further interference by the appellate forum is warranted.
The ruling is based on exemptions under the RTI Act, not on the merits of the allegations against ICICI Lombard.
Actions, Compliance, and Future Obligations
The order affirms SEBI's existing actions and compliance framework regarding RTI requests related to examinations and investigations:
- SEBI is not obligated to confirm or deny the existence of any examination or investigation.
- The confidentiality of examinations/investigations is to be maintained as per RTI Act exemptions.
- The appellant can check the status of their complaint on the SEBI SCORES portal for query number 3.
- SEBI is not required to disclose the names and designations of officials involved in handling complaints.
There are no new corrective actions, future obligations, or costs imposed on any party by this order.
Final Ruling and Enforcement
The final decision is the dismissal of the appeal (Appeal No. 6872 of 2026). The enforcement action is the upholding of SEBI's original response denying the information. The information sought in all six queries of the original RTI application was denied based on the following exemptions under the Right to Information Act, 2005:
- Query Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6: Denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
- Query No. 3: The respondent informed that the updated status can be seen on the SCORES portal. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in this response.
- Query No. 5: Denied under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(g) exempts information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Section 8(1)(j) exempts information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The order cites multiple legal precedents to support this ruling, including:
- Manju Devi v CPIO, SEBI (Order dated April 29, 2025)
- Arun Damodar Sawant vs CPIO, SEBI (Order dated September 26, 2018 in Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2017/137139/BJ)
- Anju Sharma vs. CPIO, SEBI (Order dated September 28, 2020)
- H. E. Rajashekarappa vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors. (Order dated July 01, 2008 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka)
- Prerit Misra vs. CPIO, SEBI (Order dated November 21, 2022 in File no. CIC/SEBIE/A/2019/660770)