Authority: Appellate Authority under RTI Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India
Order Date: August 05, 2026
Case Overview
The appeal was filed by Sunil Kumar against CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai regarding an RTI application dated June 15, 2026 (received through RTI MIS portal). The appellant had sought extensive information regarding his communications to SEBI about "Inconsistency in Face Value Dissemination and Distortion in Price Discovery" concerning ISIN INE583D07448.
The communications included: (A) Physical representation addressed to Shri Kamlesh Chandra Varshney, Whole Time Member (Market Regulation) sent via Speed Post No. EU048149553IN delivered on May 11, 2026; (B) Follow-up email dated May 21, 2026 to kamlesh.varshney@sebi.gov.in; and (C) Email dated May 21, 2026 to Shri Saravanan K at saravanank@sebi.gov.in with copies to Shri Sarika K and Shri Mukul S.
The appellant sought 13 specific items including diary numbers, receipt dates, inward register entries, officer names and designations, internal forwarding notes, file notings, inter-department communications, reports, current status, transfer records, closure documents, and any replies generated.
SEBI's CPIO responded on July 03, 2026, stating that examinations are conducted confidentially and SEBI cannot confirm or deny the existence of any examination. The respondent indicated that any regulatory actions would be available on SEBI's website.
The Appellate Authority found that queries 1-3 (pertaining to receipt tracking of the complaint) were not adequately addressed and warranted reconsideration. However, queries 4-13 were denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as examination/investigation confidentiality is crucial to prevent market speculation, protect evidence collection, and avoid harm to third parties.
The authority cited multiple precedents including 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) where similar denials were upheld.
Regarding the names of SEBI officials sought in the application, the authority ruled this constitutes personal information exempt under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, citing H. E. Rajashekarappa vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors. (July 01, 2008) and Prerit Misra vs. CPIO, SEBI (November 21, 2022).
Final Outcome
The Appellate Authority partially allowed the appeal. Queries 4-13 were denied under RTI Act exemptions. Queries 1-3 were remanded to the respondent CPIO for de novo consideration with direction to provide an appropriate response within 15 working days from receipt of the order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Topics: RTI Appeal, Market Regulation, Information Denial