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

Order Date: August 14, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Parivesh Shukla, filed an RTI application dated July 12, 2026, seeking detailed information about a complaint he had filed with SEBI against Shashank Trading Limited and related entities. The specific information requested included: the complaint's registration number and receipt date; its current status and action taken report; contact details of the investigating officer; copies of all communications issued by SEBI to accused parties; all replies and documents received by SEBI; internal file notings and correspondence; and the final investigation or closure report.

SEBI's CPIO responded on July 21, 2026. For query 1, they disclosed that the complaint was lodged via SCORES on July 08, 2026 (Registration No: SEBIE/MH26/MUMB/031706/1). For queries 2-7, SEBI declined to provide the information, stating that details of examinations/investigations are confidential and that any resultant enforcement orders are publicly available on their website.

The appellant filed an appeal on July 22, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00270), arguing the response was incomplete, misleading, and false.

The Appellate Authority examined the matter and concurred with the CPIO's response. It held that information pertaining to queries 2-7 is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which protects information that could impede an investigation or prosecution. The authority emphasized that maintaining confidentiality is crucial to prevent market speculation, protect evidence collection, and avoid unnecessary harm to third parties. This decision was supported by precedents from the Central Information Commission (CIC), including orders in Manju Devi v CPIO, SEBI (April 29, 2025), Arun Damodar Sawant vs CPIO, SEBI (September 26, 2018), and Anju Sharma vs. CPIO, SEBI (September 28, 2020).

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no grounds to interfere with the CPIO's decision, upholding the partial disclosure and the denial of investigation-related details. The practical consequence is that the appellant received only the basic registration details of his complaint, while all substantive information regarding SEBI's examination of the matter remains confidential.

Topics: RTI Act, SEBI Investigation, Regulatory Confidentiality