BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2410 of 2016
Gunturu Parthasarathy

Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated January 29, 2016, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter
dated February 15, 2016, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this undated
appeal (received at SEBI on March 8, 2016), 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.

From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to his
application.

3.1

Queries at point 4(a) to (f) of the appellants application In his response, the
respondent informed the appellant that the audit qualification under consideration was
referred by the relevant Stock Exchange to SEBI and the same had been reviewed by the
members of the Qualified Audit Report Review Committee (QARC), constituted by
SEBI in its meeting held on December 17, 2015. The respondent informed the appellant
that the matter was under consideration and was yet to lead to a logical conclusion and
that the information was also held by SEBI in fiduciary capacity. In view of the aforesaid,
the respondent invoked the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to
deny information to the appellant. However, the respondent informed the appellant that
the names of Committee members was available on the SEBI website i.e. www.sebi.gov.in
under
the
link:
http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/committees/CommitteesAction.do?doList=yes.

3.2

In this appeal, the appellant has inter aliasubmitted: The (respondent) cannot take protection of
exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and supress the disclosure of information The
Page 1 of 3

(respondent) has failed to clarify as to why the information sought for has been withheld under Section
8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
3.3

In his response, I note that the respondent informed the appellant that the audit
qualification under consideration was referred by the relevant Stock Exchange to SEBI
and the same had been reviewed by the members of the QARC, constituted by SEBI in its
meeting held on December 17, 2015. Further, I note that the respondent informed the
appellant that the matter was under consideration and therefore, disclosure of information
was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Upon a consideration of the
aforementioned, I find that disclosure of information would be premature to the process
of examination/investigation. In this context, reliance is placed on the decisions of the
Honble CIC in the matter of Shankar Sharma and Ors. vs. Director General of Income Tax (Inv)II & CPIO, Department of Income Tax (Decision dated 10.07.2007); Smt. Durgesh Kumari vs.
Income Tax Department (Decision dated 26.8.2011), Shri. Vinod Kumar Jain vs. Directorate General
of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi (Decision dated 20.07.2011), Shri Narender Bansal, Delhi
vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi (Decision dated January 13, 2014), Shri Arun Kumar
Agrawal vs. SEBI (Decision dated November 28, 2014 in F. No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000196) and
Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. SEBI (Decision dated December 19, 2014 in F. No.
CIC/SM/A/2013/000834/MP).

3.4

Without prejudice to the foregoing, I also note that the respondent informed the appellant
that the information was held by SEBI in fiduciary capacity.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
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 regulated
entities, market participants, etc. and the information contained in those documents are
received in 'fiduciary relationship'. I, therefore, find that the aforesaid information pertaining
to third parties, which is received in 'fiduciary relationship' from regulated entities, market
participants, etc. is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 3

4.

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

Place: Mumbai
Date: April 5, 2016

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 3 of 3