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

Order Date: July 21, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Himanshu Soni, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on May 28, 2026 (received via RTI MIS portal). The application sought extensive information and copies of numerous documents related to the IPO application process, collection of investor funds by intermediaries, investor protection frameworks, and specific regulatory actions. The queries covered eight broad points, including: 1) Circulars governing approved channels for IPO applications (e.g., ASBA, UPI); 2) Provisions concerning collection of investor funds into personal bank accounts; 3) Guidelines for stock brokers concerning collection of client money, receipt of money in personal accounts, offering assured returns, and use of informal channels like WhatsApp; 4) Investor alerts on IPO frauds and unauthorised schemes; 5) Copies of enforcement orders from the last ten years against intermediaries for specific violations; 6) Documents explaining brokers' responsibilities towards Authorised Persons; 7) Records on grievance redressal remedies; and 8) FAQs and investor awareness material.

The CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, responded on June 22, 2026, stating that the queries were vague and not specific, and therefore could not be construed as 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Notwithstanding this, the respondent informed the appellant that he could refer to documents available on the SEBI website and lodge any grievance on the SCORES portal.

The appellant filed an appeal (No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00229) on June 22, 2026, on the grounds that he was provided incomplete, misleading, or false information.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the application, response, and appeal, concurred with the CPIO's assessment. It relied on the precedent set in Naresh Kadyan Vs. CPIO, Veterinary Council of India (CIC decision dated June 14, 2023), where the CIC observed that vague and indeterminate queries do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and that stretching its interpretation to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted.

The Authority further noted that all circulars, regulations, guidelines, press releases, and enforcement orders issued by SEBI are publicly available on its website. It cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in Registrar of Companies & ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & anr. and the CIC order in Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri (CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, dated April 12, 2007), which held that if information is available in the public domain, it cannot be said to be information 'held' by the public authority, and there is no obligation to provide it under the RTI Act.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the CPIO's response and no need to interfere with the decision.

Topics: RTI Act, SEBI Regulation, Investor Protection