Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Securities and Exchange Board of India - Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commissioner and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10909 of 2023 With Writ Petition No. 10910 of 2023 With Writ Petition No. 10887 of 2023 With Writ Petition No. 10888 of 2023
Decided On : 10-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing was conducted regarding the petitions filed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenges to cic orders under rti act regarding information requests. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
(M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Having regard to this Court’s order dated 14 March 2023, we issue Rule in each of these Petitions. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Rule in each of the Petitions is made returnable immediately.
3. All these Petitions challenge the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order dated 27 December 2022 partly allowing Mr Agarwal’s application dated 18 June 2021 seeking some information from the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI).
4. The SEBI has instituted Writ Petition No. 10909 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 10910 of 2023 to challenge the impugned order, to the extent it directs the CPIO, SEBI, to furnish a revised reply to Mr Agarwal on points 1, 3, 4 and 5 under the RTI Act. Mr Agarwal has instituted Writ Petition No. 10887 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 10888 of 2023 to challenge the impugned order to the extent that it does not furnish the entire information sought in the application dated 18 June 2021 made to the CPIO, SEBI. Accordingly, it is only appropriate that all these Petitions be disposed of by common judgment and order. The learned Counsel for the parties agree to the adoption of this course of action.
5. Mr Agarwal, in his application dated 18 June 2021 had raised nine queries. In the synopsis submitted in Writ Petition No. 10887 of 2023, such queries and the observations/findings in the CIC’s impugned order have been set out in a tabular form. Accordingly, they are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
| Information sought (extracted verbatim from the Application) | Observations under the Impugned Order |
Query No. 1: Complete information including policy, guidelines etc on role of SEBI for appointment of Public- Interest-Directors (PIDs) on boards of Market Infrastructure Institution (MII) Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) National stock Exchange (NSE) Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX) MCX Clearing Corporation Limited (subsidiary of MCX) | [see: Pg. 27] The CPIO was directed to provide workable links to the Petitioner. [This is not challenged by Mr Agarwal as well as SEBI] |
Query No. 2: File notings, correspondence and other documents on framing policy, guidelines etc as referred in query (1) above for SEBI having its role in appointing PIDs on boards of MII, BSE, NSE, MCX and MCX Clearing Corporation Limited | [see: Pg. 27] Applying the exemption under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, the information sought was not provided on the ground that the information with SEBI was held in a ‘fiduciary’ capacity. [This is challenged by Mr Agarwal as well as SEBI] |
Query No. 3: File-notings, correspondence and other documents on granting approval by SEBI to appoint PIDs on boards of MII, BSE, NSE, MCX and MCX Clearing Corporation Limited from 01.01.2019 till 15.06.2021 | [see: Pg. 27] Applying the exemption under Section 8 (1)(j), the information sought was not provided on the ground that the documents pertaining to grant of approval for appointment of PIDs was personal information of the applicants. However, the CPIO was directed to provide a list of selected and rejected candidates, invoking the severability principle of Section 10 of the RTI Act and ensure the personal information and sensitivie information is redacted and masked. [This is challenged by the Mr Agarwal as well as SEBI] |
| Query No. 4: Copies of annual inspection- reports made by SEBI in respect of BSE from the year 2017-18 till 2019-20 if not available on SEBI website. | [see: Pg. 29] Applying the exemption under Section 8 (1)(d), full inspection reports were not provided and only concluding comments/final findings (year-wise) of annual inspections concluded during the period mentioned in queries no. 4 |
Disclosure of information under the RTI Act must respect third-party privacy and fiduciary exemptions unless public interest justifies disclosure, reinforcing the balance between transparency and pri....
RTI Act overrides statutory confidentiality in bank inspection reports; matter stayed pending Supreme Court clarification on public interest vs privacy.
Internal file notings and deliberative records concerning disciplinary proceedings constitute personal information exempt from disclosure under privacy provisions. Absent a demonstrable, superior pub....
The court established that communications between public authorities regarding an employee's performance, when classified as private, do not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act if they do not relate....
The Right to Information Act protects personal information from disclosure unless a larger public interest is established.
Exempt organizations under the RTI Act must disclose information related to public interest, particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
