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

Order Date: November 02, 2026

Case Overview

This order pertains to an appeal (No. 7122 of 2026) filed by Amit Vilas Jadhav against the response provided by the CPIO of SEBI, Mumbai, to his Right to Information (RTI) application dated September 05, 2026. The appellant sought extensive information and certified copies of records related to a specific grievance (Registration No. DCOYA/E/2026/0006755) received by SEBI on August 14, 2026, concerning a corporate governance whistleblower complaint and alleged retaliation against 3i Infotech Ltd. The grievance status showed a 'Case closed' status with a date of action of August 18, 2026. The appellant's 12-point request covered details from the inward receipt and file allocation to all communications with the company and the internal records leading to the closure of the case.

The respondent (CPIO, SEBI) had denied most of the information. For query no. 1 (certified copy of inward receipt), they stated the complaint was received on August 18, 2026 (not the 14th), and was recorded under the provided reference number, claiming to have enclosed a copy. For query no. 2 (file movement and allocation), the information was denied under Sections 8(1)(a), (g), and (j) of the RTI Act, citing that it pertained to internal functioning and personal information of officials, the disclosure of which could hamper decision-making and invade privacy. For query nos. 3 to 7 and 9 (action taken records, communications with the company, and closure notes), the respondent stated that SEBI conducts examinations confidentially, neither confirms nor denies investigations, and only makes final orders public. For query no. 8 (forwarding to other authorities), SEBI stated it had not forwarded the matter to MCA, ROC, or any other regulator. Query no. 10 was addressed by referring to individual responses, and query no. 11 was deemed hypothetical and not 'information' as defined under the RTI Act.

The appellant filed the appeal on the ground that he was refused access to the requested information.

The Appellate Authority, Ruchi Chojer, perused the records and made the following observations and conclusions. For query no. 1, the authority noted that the enclosure mentioned in the CPIO's reply was not actually attached on the RTI MIS portal. The respondent was directed to take necessary steps to address this omission within 3 working days from receiving this order. For query no. 2, the authority concurred with the CPIO, upholding the denial under Sections 8(1)(a), (g), and (j). This decision was supported by legal precedents from the Supreme Court (ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya), the Karnataka High Court (H. E. Rajashekarappa case), and a previous order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Prerit Misra vs. CPIO, SEBI, which protected internal functioning and officials' personal details.

For query nos. 3 to 7, 9, and 11, the authority upheld the denial under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that could impede the process of investigation or prosecution. The authority emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality in SEBI's examinations to prevent market speculation, protect evidence collection, and avoid harm to third parties. This position was reinforced by citing a recent CIC order in Manju Devi v CPIO, SEBI (April 29, 2025) and earlier orders in Arun Damodar Sawant and Anju Sharma cases, which accepted SEBI's policy of neither confirming nor denying investigations. The authority noted that any final regulatory action or penalty would be available on SEBI's website.

For query no. 8, the authority found the CPIO's response—that the information was not forwarded—to be adequate. The authority also noted that no specific information was sought in query no. 10, as it was a procedural request regarding exemptions.

Final Outcome

The appeal was disposed of. The Appellate Authority largely upheld SEBI's denial of information, affirming the use of exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a), (g), (h), and (j) of the RTI Act to protect internal processes, personal information, and the confidentiality of examinations. The only relief granted was a directive for the CPIO to provide the certified copy of the grievance receipt (per query no. 1) that was supposed to be enclosed with the original reply, to be actioned within 3 working days.

Topics: RTI Act, SEBI Investigation, Whistleblower Complaint