Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sundaresan vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 8 April, 2026

                              केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                     Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                     नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/602912


 Sundaresan                                         ......अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम


 CPIO: SEBI                                       ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

 Date of Hearing                         :       07.04.2026

 Date of Decision                        :       07.04.2026

 Information Commissioner                : Shri Surendra Singh Meena


 Relevant Facts Emerging from Appeal:


 RTI application                             :   31.10.2023

 PIO replied on                              :   07.11.2023

 First Appeal filed on                       :   27.11.2023

 First Appeal Order on                       :   12.12.2023

 2nd Appeal received on                      :   Nil




CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/602912                                            Page 1 of 10
  Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:

"INFORMATION SOUGHT The annual reports of SEBI are first forwarded to Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry Finance, who places the same before Parliament.

2) What happens to the report when they are forwarded to the Ministry

- does Ministry act as a department of Department / Ministry of Post and just forwards the same to the Parliament without examining the same.

3) What are the processes through which the annual reports go through from the time it enters the Department till its exit to Parliament.

4) Who is responsible to see in DEA that the annual reports of SEBI meet the requirements of law. Name, designation etc - pls indicate for each of the annual reports for 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23.

5) I mention some of the emails addressed to both "[email protected]" and / or " [email protected], which along with mails trailing them are information matters suppressed in annual reports of SEBI relating to several matters including diversion of funds by mutual funds, matters not reported in annual reports of SEBI as referred to Ministry Corporate Affairs for action on matters relating of misconduct, information of auditors wilfully refusing to forewarn on insolvencies, fraud etc etc, information of auditors conspiring in fraud with auditees, information of auditors habitually doing so etc etc where the evidences have also been forwarded by me and in many cases such unlawful acts by auditors resulted in insolvencies and losses in insolvencies, and impossibilities in clawing back the losses in insolvencies due to auditors not forwarding us CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/602912 Page 2 of 10 timely pursuant to their duties under eg Sec 143(3)(f) , under Companies Audit Report Orders etc etc, copying modus operandi of fraud perpetrated by auditors of CPSUs by fraudsters in DHFL, extortion of fees by auditors etc etc etc (wherever required key matters have been highlighted in this font in the sub paras of this para below)

-- ATRs along with list of dates of significant events is ALSO the information sought ((at paras 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, dates of mails " and the contents /extracts from the contents of the header to those mails and other relevant details including key matters wherever required have been mentioned) 5.1) mail dt 17.8.2023 on " ANNUAL REPORT 2022-23 SEBI does not report on Orders dt 2.3.2023 in Writ Petition (C) No. 162 of 2023 (Vishal Tewari V UOI) and Writ Petition (Crl) No. 39 of 2023 With Writ Petition (C) No. 201 of 2023 And With Writ Petition (Crl) No. 57 of 2023 also annual reports for 2022-23 and earlier years not noted to report on price fluctuations due to NSE colocation, on regulatory coordination where eg NFRA evidenced fraud - also does not report on predatory overpricing and drastic falls in values post closing of subscriptions and post listing - nexus between various annual reports

- who can conspire in annual reports of SEBI and how entire Lokpal missed the same and nexus of this with NALSA failing to discharge its duties eg to do all things necessary for the purpose of ensuring commitment to the fundamental duties of citizens under Part IVA of the Constitution; Sec 4(h) Legal Services Authorities Act ---- Annual Reports of CIC ;;;; All the matters at paras 1 to 8 of my trailing mail dt 7.8.2023 are matters on which the CIC must furnish in annual reports "recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for the development, improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/602912 Page 3 of 10 operationalising the right to access information." more particularly as they deal with wilful refusal to inform and furnish evidence on audit report fraud, Board Report fraud, CAG report fraud, accounts fraud, AGM fraud, losses in insolvencies etc --- There is a nexus between misleading annual reports to Parliament and NALSA discharging its duties, Lokpal 's need to understand conspiracies in SEBI's annual reports, nexuses between various annual reports -- I have explained some nexuses at para 9"

6) The matters on annual reports raised in mails forwarded to "Chairman SEBI "but not to Secretary DEA are;

6.1) mail dt 14.8.2023 on "RE: Clarification; para 3.3 At pages 198 and 199 of the said ANNUAL REPORT we have atleast 3 instances of wilful suppression of material information which SEBI is duty bound to report to Parliament. How many more wilful suppressions etc etc -

- how do I know I need not emphasise once more the importance of NALSA discharging its duties" - wilful suppressions in annual reports of SEBI to Parliament on divertion of funds by mutual funds and subsequent misappropriation and / or diversion in very likely Yes Bank 6.2) mail dt 15.8.2023 on " Some wilful suppressions in ANNUAL REPORTs of SEBI relating to diversion of funds by mutual funds mandated by SEBI annual report rules to be reported in annual reports of SEBI suppressed in the said annual reports now reported to Honble CJI cum Honble Patron in Chief of both NALSA and SCLSC -

- NALSA and its duties and other unlawful acts of public servants -- this matter was not complained to Lokpal in complaints on misleading annual reports to Parliament under various laws -- In addition to auditors, secretarial auditors, CAG, directors, audit committee and others and may be cost auditors not reporting on fraud and diversion of funds, even SEBI, IBBI etc etc do not report. such unlawful acts are CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/602912 Page 4 of 10 associated with my service petition fraudulently suppressed by legal aid counsels and by others at SCLSC fabricating my income etc etc - NALSA, legal aid and access to justice and other unlawful acts --Such suppression of unlawful acts and diversion of funds were not the su"

Etc.........."

The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"This has reference to your RTI application with Ref No SEBIH/R/T/23/00215 dated 31/10/2023 transferred from Department of Economic Affairs and received by SEBI through RTI MIS Portal. Our reply is as under:

Reply to query (1): No information sought Reply to queries (2-4): The information sought by you is not available with SEBI.

Reply to queries (5-6.2): Your queries are vague and not specific. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as "information", as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2023 stated as under:-

"Requests now. 2-4 of the application - The appellant, vide his application sought following information vide request nos.2 -4:

"The annual reports of SEBI are first forwarded to Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry Finance, who places the same before Parliament.

2) What happens to the report when they are forwarded to the Ministry does Ministry act as a department of Department / Ministry of Post and just forwards the same to the Parliament without examining the same.

3) What are the processes through which the annual reports go through from the time it enters the Department till its exit to Parliament.

4) Who is responsible to see in DEA that the annual reports of SEBI meet the requirements of law. Name, designation etc- pls indicate for each of the annual reports for 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23."

Reply of the Respondent - The respondent, in response to the aforesaid requests, informed that the information sought is not available with SEBI.

I have perused the requests and the response provided thereto. With respect to request nos. 2 - 4 above, I note that the said requests do not pertain to SEBI and appears to be pertaining to Department of Economic Affairs (DEA), Ministry of Finance. I note that as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, when the information sought is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with function of another public authority, the obligation is casted upon the public authority who is in receipt of the application to transfer the said application or such part of it as may be appropriate to the concerned public authority. In view of the above, w.r.t. the aforesaid requests, the respondent has the obligation to transfer the said application to DEA, Ministry of Finance.

Requests nos. 5 - 6.2 of the application - The appellant vide request nos. 5 - 6.2, inter alia, has referred to his emails addressed to both Chairman, SEBI and Department of Economic Affairs pertaining to CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/602912 Page 6 of 10 allegations of misleading statements and suppressions of matters in the annual reports of SEBI.

Reply of the Respondent - In response to the request nos. 5 - 6.2, the respondent informed that the information sought are vague and not specific. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as "information" as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

I have perused the requests and the response provided thereto. On consideration, I agree with the response of the respondent that the same is vague and not specific. It is an established law that the information sought for in order to be disclosable under the RTI Act, must be clear, specific and available in the records of the public authority. In this context, I note that in the matter of Mr. T. V. Sundaresan vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated November 24, 2021), the Hon'ble CIC held: "The framework of the RTI Act, 2005 expects that the information sought is specific and believed to be existing with the public authority in documented or material form as such; which can be shared with the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Answering to broad, multiple and general queries and presumptive documents that should have been generated as per the expectation of the appellant cannot be furnished under the provisions of the Act." In view of these observations, I find that the request cannot be construed as seeking "information", as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, I do not find any deficiency in the response.

In view of the above observations, w.r.t. request nos. 2 - 4 above, I hereby direct the respondent to transfer the said application in terms of RTI Act to the concerned public authority and intimate the appellant regarding the same, within 5 working days from the date of receipt of this order."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The appellant was present through video conference.

The respondent Mr. Pranjal Jaiswal, CPIO, was present through video conference.

The appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought on point nos. 5 and 6 has not been provided by the respondent. He further submitted that he had sent emails dated 07.08.2023, 14.08.2023 and 15.08.2023 with respect to annual reports of SEBI relating to several matters including diversion of funds by mutual funds, matters not reported in their annual reports, to the chairman, SEBI, but no reply on these emails were provided by the respondent.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the reply to the RTI application has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 07.11.2023. The respondent further submitted that the FAA's order dated 12.12.2023 has also been complied by the respondent on 14.12.2023. The respondent further submitted that the information sought on point nos. 5 and 6, was vague and not specific, hence not replied. A written submission dated 30.03.2026 of the respondent is stated as under:-

"Pursuant to FAA order the queries 2-4 were transferred to Department of Economic Affairs (DEA), Ministry of Finance vide the letter dated December 14, 2023.

As regards the queries 5 to 6.2, it was already informed to the applicant that the queries are vague and not specific and the same was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Hence, it is humbly requested that the appeal may be dismissed."

When it was asked that how information sought on point no. 5 and 6 are vague, since the appellant has mentioned in his trailing emails dated 07.08.2023, 14.08.2023 and 15.08.2023 and sought the details of action taken on them, the respondent could not give any satisfactory reply during hearing. The documents related to action taken on mail cannot be denied u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, hence the reply provided by the respondent vide letter dated 07.11.2023 is not appropriate. The respondent submitted that he will revisit the RTI application and provide revised reply on point no. 5 and 6.

Decision:

In the light of the above facts, the respondent is directed to provide revised reply to the appellant, as submitted during hearing, within three weeks after receipt of this order. With this direction, the appeal is disposed.

Sd (Surendra Singh Meena) (सुरेंद्र ससिंह मीना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 07.04.2026 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:

1. Sundaresan CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/602912 Page 9 of 10

2. The CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/602912 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)