Authority: Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Securities and Exchange Board of India
Order Date: November 02, 2026
Case Overview
The appellant, P. Sachithanantham, filed an RTI application dated August 28, 2026 (received by SEBI on August 29, 2026) seeking clarification and information regarding multiple issues encountered during a share transmission process from his deceased father to himself as the son. The appellant detailed a protracted 300-day process where the Registrar and Transfer Agent (RTA) returned his transmission request four times for various reasons including: requiring death certificate in English instead of Tamil (notarized), requesting attestation of already notarized documents, questioning name discrepancies in records, and finally asking to search for share certificates before eventually accepting that shares were with the RTA. The appellant specifically sought:
1. Copies of SEBI's punishment rules applicable to RTAs for unnecessary return of transmission requests four times
2. Rules regarding false reporting of 'NIL' pending cases when complaints were pending for over a year
3. Clarification on requirements for No Objection Certificates from non-claimant legal heirs
4. Explanation for RTA providing registration intimation one month before actual registration
The CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai responded on September 17, 2026, stating that the information sought was in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and could not be construed as "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed an appeal dated September 30, 2026 (Registration No. SEBIH/A/P/26/0072, received October 06, 2026) expressing dissatisfaction with this response.
The Appellate Authority examined the application, response, and appeal, concluding that the appellant's queries were situational in nature and sought legal opinions or clarifications rather than defined information. The authority cited the precedent of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mehta vs. CPIO, SEBI (Judgment dated April 12, 2021) where the Central Information Commission had ruled that CPIOs are not required to interpret information, furnish replies to situational queries, or provide clarifications under the RTI Act.
Final Outcome
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, finding no deficiency in the CPIO's response. The authority determined that SEBI had no obligation under the RTI Act to provide the clarifications or opinions sought by the appellant regarding share transmission procedures, RTA compliance requirements, or punishment rules for false reporting.
Topics: RTI Appeal, Share Transmission, Regulatory Compliance