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

Order Date: September 21, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Harish, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on August 04, 2026, received by SEBI through the RTI MIS portal. The application sought information regarding the Motilal Oswal Microcap 250 Index Fund, which had been kept on hold due to a category issue. The specific queries were:

1. Whether any prior approvals are required by Asset Management Companies (AMCs) before launching a fund.

2. If yes, whether Motilal Oswal AMC had sought and been granted approval for this fund.

3. How the AMC launched the fund if the category cannot be maintained.

4. What measures are in place with the regulator to avoid such recurrences.

The CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, responded on August 27, 2026. For query 1, the respondent informed that before launching a scheme, an AMC files a draft Scheme Information Document (SID) with SEBI, which then issues observations. For query 2, the respondent confirmed that the concerned AMC had filed the scheme and SEBI had issued necessary observations, providing links to access the SID on SEBI and the AMC's websites. For queries 3 and 4, the respondent stated that these were in the nature of seeking clarification or opinion and thus did not constitute 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The appellant filed an appeal on August 28, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00330), arguing that the provided information was incomplete, misleading, or false.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the application, response, and appeal, concurred with the CPIO's stance. For queries 1 and 2, it found the response adequate. For queries 3 and 4, it upheld that they sought clarification/opinion, not record-based information, and thus the CPIO had no obligation to respond under the RTI Act. The Authority cited the precedent of Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (order dated March 23, 2021) to reinforce that a CPIO is not supposed to create, interpret, or compile information but is only a communicator of existing records.

Final Outcome

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

Topics: RTI Appeal, Mutual Fund Regulation, SEBI Process