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

Order Date: June 18, 2026

Case Overview

This order disposes of an appeal (No. 6895 of 2026) filed by Sumit Saurabh against the response of the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The application, dated April 02, 2026, sought information specifically related to Shree Hanuman Sugar and Industries Ltd (SHSIL). The appeal, filed on May 21, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00189), contested the response to only two queries: 10 and 12.

Query 10 sought details on "strict directives" SEBI issued to promoters to provide an "Exit Route" for investors following the compulsory delisting/suspension of SHSIL by the NSE in August 2018, and whether an Escrow Account was established for a share buyback.

Query 12 had two parts: the first sought the total number of complaints received against SHSIL and SMS Techsoft on the SCORES portal since 2014; the second asked if SEBI had formulated a plan to compensate investor losses using the Investor Protection Fund (IPF) or by liquidating promoter assets.

The CPIO's response, dated April 30, 2026, stated that the information sought in Query 10 was "not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market" and referred the appellant to the SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2021, and the NSE website. For Query 12, the CPIO stated that the request for a compensation plan was in the nature of seeking a clarification or opinion and thus not "information" as defined under the RTI Act. The CPIO also stated that the data on investor complaints was not maintained in the normal course of business.

The appellant's ground for appeal was that he was refused access to the requested information.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority, Ruchi Chojer, upheld the CPIO's response for the majority of the queries. For Query 10, it was concluded that SEBI could only provide information available in its records and, citing a previous CIC order (Lakshminarayanan R vs. SEBI), found no deficiency in stating the information was not maintained.

For the second part of Query 12 (regarding compensation plans), the authority concurred with the CPIO, ruling it was a request for clarification/opinion and not 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, citing the precedent of Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

However, the Authority found that the first part of Query 12 (regarding the number of investor complaints) had not been adequately addressed. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by remanding this specific part of the application back to the CPIO for de novo consideration. The CPIO was directed to send an appropriate response to the appellant within 15 working days from the receipt of this order.

Topics: RTI Appeal, Compulsory Delisting, Investor Complaints