Central Information Commission
Manju Devi vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 29 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/627583
Manju Devi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Securities and
Exchange Board of India ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
(SEBI), Head Office,
Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.05.2024 FA : 13.06.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 07.06.2024 FAO : 25.06.2024 Hearing : 29.04.2025
Date of Decision: 29.04.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Kindly refer to the given below e-mails sent by me to you:-
S. No. Date & Time of Emails Sent to email IDs Subject 1 Wednesday, 14th Feb. [email protected] Most Urgent 2024 (9:56 AM) Request Letter 2 Thursday, 22nd Feb. 2024 Chaiperson and all Most Urgent Page 1 of 5 (8:00 AM) Members of SEBI Request Letter 3 Tuesday, 27th Feb. 2024 Chairperson of SEBI (by Most Urgent (6:50 PM) name) Request Letter ....etc
1. Complete/detailed action-taken reports of the action taken by the concerned authorities on the issues/complaints raised in the abovementioned emails.
2. complete/detailed findings of investigation conducted by the concerned authorities on the issues/complaints raised in the abovementioned emails.
3. Reasons for delay in processing (action taking) on the issues/complaints raised in the abovementioned emails and the officers responsible for the delay.
4. Authorities/Officers of SEBI who is/are monitoring (responsible for) the processing the issues/complaints raised in the abovementioned emails AND details of the action taken by him/them on the same and on the delay in processing by the concerned department/authority.
5. When will the concerned authorities provide the reply to the issues/complaints raised in the abovementioned emails?
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Your complaints are in the nature of market intelligence. SEBI receives such complaints/market intelligence from various entities/persons for activities in stock market SEBI examines such market intelligence/complaints and based on the facts and/or circumstances of the case, takes action as deemed appropriate."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false Page 2 of 5 and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.06.2024 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 Nil.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent B.J. Dilip, CPIO and Chief General Manager and Mohammad Atif Alvi, General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had responded as per the pending status of the case at the material time. Further, examination upon the complaint had been concluded and no adverse action was taken with respect to the same. The CPIO explained that the status of the complaints wherein enforcement action is taken, are updated at SEBI's website in due course of operations. Further, the FAA by invoking Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act had cited the justification for denial of information, extracts of which are reproduced as under:
"FAA noted that the respondent had clearly stated that relevant complaints of the appellant were in the nature of market intelligence. Further, FAA concurred with the respondent that SEBI receives market intelligence/complaints from various sources and these may or may not result in further action by SEBI, such as examination or investigation. Such examination or investigation may or may not establish the suspected violations or lead to enforcement actions. In FAA's opinion, maintaining confidentiality of examination/investigation was important since reports of the same may result in unwarranted speculation or concern in the market or may affect evidence collection during the examination/investigation or may result in unnecessary harm to third parties. Hence, FAA found that the requested information was exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Further, FAA noted that information regarding any regulatory action taken by SEBI/penalty imposed against entities, will be available on the website of SEBI. The rationale for neither confirming nor denying existence of any Page 3 of 5 examination/investigation was relied upon by SEBI before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as "CIC") in Arun Damodar Sawant vs CPIO, SEBI (order dated September 26, 2018 in Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2017/137139/BJ). The Hon'ble CIC, in the said matter, accepted the submissions and refused to intervene in the response of the CPIO. Similar observations were also made by the Hon'ble CIC, in the matter of Anju Sharma vs. CPIO, SEBI (order dated September 28, 2020). In view of these observations, FAA found that the application has been adequately addressed and no further interference of this forum."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application. In addition to the said reply, the FAA had rightly justified the denial of information by claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act and by citing reasons for having invoked the same. That being so, it appears that there is no infirmity with the stand taken by the respondent considering the circumstances at the material time. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead her 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 रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.04.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 2 Manju Devi Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)