BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2270 of 2015
Ms Ekta Bablani

Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated June 25, 2015, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated August
19, 2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated September
25, 2015 (received at SEBI on October 20, 2015), against the said response. I have
carefully considered the application, the response and the appeal and find that the matter
can be decided based on the material available on record.

2.

I note that under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, an aggrieved person may prefer the first
appeal within 30 days from the receipt of the respondents response. In the instant case,
the appellant received the impugned response on August 25, 2015, as evident from the
Acknowledgment Card. Hence, she should have filed the appeal by September 24, 2015.
Although this appeal is dated September 25, 2015, the same was only received at SEBI on
October 20, 2015 (received at the Department of Posts, India on October 15, 2015 and
forwarded by that authority vide letter dated October 16, 2015). From the aforementioned,
it is observed that the appeal has been made more than 22 days after the last date
permissible under the RTI Act. In this appeal, the appellant has made an application for
condonation of delay on the ground that there was hospitalisation of her mother during
the appeal period. Upon a consideration of the aforesaid, I find that the delay in filing the
present appeal may be condoned.

3.

In this appeal, the appellant has made a request for a personal hearing in the matter. In this
regard, I note that Section 19(6) of the RTI Act mandates the disposal of the first appeal
filed under Section 19(1) of that Act within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such
extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for
reasons to be recorded in writing. I, therefore, find that there is no such obligation on the part
Page 1 of 4

of the First Appellate Authority to give disposal after giving hearing. In this context,
reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Honble CIC in the matters of Mr. Milind
Hemant Kotak, Mumbai vs. Canara Bank (Decision dated April 24, 2008) and Mr R.K Jain vs.
UPSC (Decision dated March 10, 2014).
4.

From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to the
following queries of her application, viz.
i.
ii.

iii.

Under RTI Act, may be informed about the latest position of investigation in the matter referred to
in above letter
SEBI Chairman has time & again said that for healthy market we should complete all investigation
within 1 year Copies of all the orders/instruction issued by SEBIs Chairman to all staff be
furnished under RTI Act.
Furnish copy of investigation report referred to in your letter dated April 2012.

5.1

Queries at point nos. 1 & 4 of the appellants application In his response, the
respondent informed the appellant that although investigation in the matter was complete,
the information sought by her included information received by SEBI in fiduciary capacity
from other entities like bank and foreign regulators and such information also included
information pertaining to commercial confidence of third parties, disclosure of which may
harm their competitive position. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent invoked the
provisions of Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act to deny information to
the appellant.

5.2

In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: The (respondent) has deliberately and
malafidely denied information by illegally stating that information sought includes information received
by SEBI in fiduciary capacity from other entities and further includes information pertaining to commercial
confidence of third parties disclosure may harm competitive position

5.3

I note that in his response, the respondent had invoked the provisions of Sections 8(1)(d),
8(1)(e) and 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act to deny information to the appellant.In this context, I
note that while disposing of a batch of Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8396/2009, 16907/2006,
4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 and 3607 of 2007, the Honble
High Court of Delhi in its Order dated November 30, 2009, held that the 'person'referred to in
section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act will include a public authority. It also held that: In a fiduciary
relationship, the principal emphasis is on trust, and reliance, the fiduciarys superior power and
corresponding dependence of the beneficiary on the fiduciary. It requires a dominant position, integrity and
Page 2 of 4

responsibility of the fiduciary to act in good faith and for the benefit of and to protect the beneficiary and not
oneself. I find that SEBI, being a public authority under the RTI Act as well as the
regulatory authority for the securities market, gets various documents from foreign
regulators, banks, etc. and the information contained in those documents are received in
'fiduciary relationship'. Such documents may contain information in the nature of commercial
confidence of third parties i.e. bank statements, etc. disclosure of which may adversely
impact their competitive position. Further, if such information is disclosed to a citizen
under the RTI Act, it may adversely affect the relationship SEBI shares with foreign
regulators and may also jeopardize the exchange of information between them, which is
essential for healthy functioning of securities markets. I, therefore, find that information
pertaining to commercial confidence of third parties, which is received in 'fiduciary
relationship' from foreign regulators, banks, etc. is exempted from disclosure under Sections
8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act.
6.1

Query at point no. 2 of the appellants application In his response, the respondent
inter alia informed the appellant that the instant query was not clear and specific as required
in terms of Section 6(1) of the RTI Act; hence, the same could not be construed as
information in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

6.2

In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: although my RTI Application is very
clear that I want copies of Orders of SEBIs Chairmans Directions to staff to conduct investigations
within one Year this (respondent) is supposed to see the Orders of SEBI Chairman in this regard and
furnish copies of same

6.3

Upon a consideration of the instant query, I find that the appellants request for
information was vague and not specific. I note that in the matter of Shri S. C. Sharma vs.
CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated August 30, 2012), the Hon'ble CIC
had held that: "Since the Appellant had not clearly stated what exact information he wanted, the CPIO
could not have provided any specific information to him. We would like to advise the Appellant that he
might like to specify the exact information he wants from the SEBI and prefer a fresh application before
the CPIO". In addition, I note that in the matter of Mrs. Bina Saha vs. CPIO, Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Decision dated November 6, 2012), the Hon'ble CIC had held: "It must
be remembered that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines information as a material or virtual record. The
citizen has every right to get copies of such records held by any public authority including the SEBI.
However, in order to get the copies of such records, the information seeker has to specify the details of the
records she wants. In fact, section 6(1) of the RTI Act very clearly states that the information seeker has to
specify the particulars of the information sought by him or her".In view of these observations, I find
Page 3 of 4

that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is
not clear and specific. However, if the appellant still wishes to get information, she may
prefer a fresh application before the respondent specifying clearly the exact information he
wants from SEBI.
7.

I, therefore, find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Place: Mumbai
Date: November 9, 2015

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 4 of 4