Information sought in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion cannot be construed as “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Please provide me the information based on the records, documents and circulars with the SEBI to the CPIO, who will inherit the unit holder units or amount at the event of unit holder death if valid single nomination exist in the mutual fund portfolio.

(ii) And give me information with the records, documents and circulars of SEBI to the CPIO of SEBI as per Indian law, if nominee transferred the units for them and got redemption after death of unit holder for mutual fund units, and nominee is also a one of the legal heirs for unit holder, nominee is the final absolute owner for that amount or legal heirs of unit holder can claim their share from nominee from court.

(iii) Provide me the documents showing that who is the final absolute owner for mutual fund units after death of unit holder.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “Your queries are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as “information”, as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

However, you may be informed to refer to the provisions of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 and the circulars issued by SEBI regarding requirements of nominations.

The direct link to the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 is provided below:

https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/regulations/aug-2022/securities-and-exchange- board-of-india-mutual-funds-regulations-1996-last-ammended-on-august-3-2022- 61683.html Further the circulars issued by SEBI website at the link:

https://www.sebi.gov.in.sebiweb/home/HomeAction/do?doListing=yes&sid=1&ssi d=7∣=0”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 07.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO. 4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.12.2022. 5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Chief General Manager and CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had raised queries seeking clarification regarding redemption of units after death of unit holder for mutual fund units, etc. and they had provided the relevant circulars governing the subject-matter. However, the queries could not be answered as per the provisions of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, since the same was not in material form. 7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामलंगम आनंदी रामलंगम) आनंदी रामलंगम आनंदी रामलंगम Information Commissioner (सूचना सूचना आयु आयु) आयु आयु सूचना सूचना दनांक/Date: 13.03.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा (रटायड)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of India, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, SEBI Bhawan, Plot No.C4-A, "G" Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051 2. Sudhakar