ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2022 seeking information on the following points:

NSE Colo case • PIO to provide a copy of the data-sharing agreement of Ajay Shah, with the NSE, after 2012.

• PIO to provide a copy of the Deloitte report, submitted to SEBI, on 23 December 2016, on the NSE's tick-by-tick (TBT) system (Colo case) • PIO to provide the details of the audit and consulting fees paid, to Deloitte and EY, from FY 2013 to FY 2016, by the NSE, as under:

o Year, Nature of Assignment, Name of Audit/Consulting entity, Amount of fees • PIO to provide the names of the members who had placed their servers in the NSE, in the years 2014 to 2016, and the fees earned by the NSE, from such placement of servers (by the members) NSE Penalty • PIO to provide the details of the aggregate penalty imposed on the NSE, in the last 5 years (irrespective of whether it was stayed by SAT or a High Court or the Apex Court), as under:

o Year, SEBI order reference number, Nature of breach, Amount of penalty, etc./ other related information. 2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.02.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “NSE Colo case The information sought by you is available to SEBI in fiduciary capacity and hence is exempt u/s 8 (1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005.

NSE Penalty The form in which information regarding penalty has been requested would disproportionately divert the resources of SEBI against NSE is available on SEBI website www.sebi.gov.in under the head Enforcement. The link for the same is https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders.html, etc.” 3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.02.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.03.2022 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 28.03.2022. 5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, CPIO and Shri Mohd. Atif, General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference. 6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had illegally denied statistical information under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d), (e) and Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.

Further, he insisted that his additional written submissions may be taken on records, and extracts thereof are reproduced as under:

“As per the SC, (in the case of Jayantilal Mistry), RBI does not hold data of banks in a fiduciary capacity. Hence, the same logic applies to SEBI. SEBI has no fiduciary duty to Deloitte or the Brokers who defrauded 50 million investors. SEBI has a fiduciary duty to the Indian People.

If the audit fees paid to Deloitte is disclosed in the Company Annual reports and does not impact Section 8(1)(d)- then how will the fees paid by NSE to Deloitte be impacted under 8(1)(d). How can audit fees and consulting fees be a fiduciary matter? Deloitte audit reports are printed as a routine matter in every annual report of its client. So, if Deloitte did an audit for NSE or of NSE, how is the report exempt under Section 8(1)(d) or (e). If the Henderson report on the 1962 war, duly redacted can be released by the MOD, then why not the Deloitte reports. The TOR, Scope of work, Methodology, sample sizes team size and time and conclusions, should be immediately disclosed.

NSE Penalty There is no disproportionate diversion as data is sought for only 1 party. The public have a right to know the number of infractions of a leading exchange, which is also, not a public authority. If SEBI desires, it can give the data for every year and number of orders in each year. If an exchange is subject to penalties year after year, then what hope exists for investor rights in this nation? Forensic Audits Statistical data on forensic audits, in terms of the names of the auditor and auditee and year of audit ca