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

Order Date: November 12, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Amit Harlalka, filed an appeal (No. 7152 of 2026) against the response from the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, to his RTI application dated September 23, 2026. The application sought detailed information on SEBI's monitoring, performance tracking, and regulatory actions concerning stock buy/sell recommendations broadcast on television news channels Zee Business and CNBC Awaaz over the previous year.

The appellant's key queries included:

1. Whether SEBI monitors recommendations on these channels and requested copies of applicable rules.

2. Details of any monitoring reports, performance reports, or complaint records.

3. Whether SEBI maintains success ratio/accuracy records for these recommendations.

4. Rules clarifying if performance tracking is required.

5. Applicable SEBI rules governing persons providing recommendations on TV.

6. Information on mandatory disclosures required while giving recommendations.

7. Details of any complaints, investigations, or regulatory actions taken in the last year.

8. Information on any prescribed mechanism to verify/track performance.

The CPIO, SEBI, responded on October 15, 2026. For queries 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, it stated the information sought was in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and not 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. For queries 5 and 6, it directed the appellant to the publicly available SEBI (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014, specifically Regulations 18 and 21, and the Master Circular for Research Analysts dated February 6, 2026 (paragraphs 19 and 20 of Annexure I of Chapter VII). For query 2, it stated the request was vague and not specific. For query 7, it invoked exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating disclosure could impede investigation or prosecution processes.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the records, concurred with the CPIO's responses. It held that queries 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 sought clarifications/opinions/confirmations, not 'information,' and thus SEBI had no obligation to provide them under the RTI Act. It cited the CIC order in Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (March 23, 2021) to support this. For query 2, it agreed the request was vague and not specific, citing the CIC decision in Mr. T. V. Sundaresan vs. CPIO, SEBI (November 24, 2021). For query 7, it upheld the use of Section 8(1)(h) exemption, emphasizing the need for confidentiality in examinations/investigations to prevent market speculation, protect evidence collection, and avoid harm to third parties. It cited CIC orders in Arun Damodar Sawant vs CPIO, SEBI (September 26, 2018) and Anju Sharma vs. CPIO, SEBI (September 28, 2020) as precedent.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the CPIO's response and declined to interfere. No information was ordered to be disclosed. The appellant was effectively directed to refer to existing public documents (SEBI Research Analyst Regulations and Master Circular) for general governance rules.

Topics: RTI Act, SEBI Monitoring, Research Analyst Regulations