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

Order Date: November 12, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Vaibhav Bansal (Appeal No. 7147 of 2026, Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00393) against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai. The appellant had filed an RTI application dated September 20, 2026, seeking information related to SEBI's Grade A Legal officer recruitment process for the 2025 exercise. The respondent (CPIO) had responded via a letter dated October 13, 2026. The appellant filed a first appeal dated October 14, 2026, on the ground that he was refused access to the requested information. The Appellate Authority perused the application, the response, and the appeal to decide the matter.

The appellant's RTI application contained two specific queries:

1. A request for clarification on how candidates without the required 2 years of qualifying experience are evaluated in the interview, specifically asking if marks are given out of 11.25 or 15 and later reduced proportionately.

2. A request for the marks distribution for the three questions in the Phase 2 Paper 2 legal descriptive exam for his specific roll number (2101000xxx), seeking separate marks for: (a) a question on depositories, (b) a question on LLPs, and (c) a question comparing old and new criminal laws.

SEBI's CPIO responded that Query No. 1 was in the nature of seeking a clarification or opinion and thus did not constitute 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. For Query No. 2, the CPIO stated that the online examination was conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), an autonomous body, under an MoU. The evaluated descriptive answer sheets are in the possession of IBPS and are not shared with SEBI; therefore, the information was not available with SEBI. The respondent also informed the appellant that relevant information, including marks obtained by candidates in Phase II and the interview, had been published on the SEBI website and provided the relevant link.

The Appellate Authority concurred with the CPIO's reasoning. For Query No. 1, it was held that seeking an explanation or opinion does not fall under the definition of 'information' in the RTI Act, and public authorities are not obliged to provide such clarifications. The authority relied on the order in Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (March 23, 2021) by the Central Information Commission (CIC), which states that a CPIO is a communicator of existing records and cannot be expected to create, interpret, or deduce information.

For Query No. 2, the authority affirmed that a public authority can only provide information that is available and existing in its records. Since the evaluated answer sheets were not held by SEBI, there was no obligation to provide it. This reasoning was supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (August 9, 2011), which states that the RTI Act does not cast an obligation on a public authority to collect or collate non-available information.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the response of the CPIO, SEBI. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original decision.

Topics: RTI Act, SEBI Recruitment, Administrative Law