Central Information Commission
Hansaji I Prajapati vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 7 May, 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/SEBIE/A/2025/101070
Hansaji I Prajapati ......अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: SEBI ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2026
Date of Decision : 06.05.2026
Information Commissioner : Shri Surendra Singh Meena
Relevant Facts Emerging from Appeal:
RTI application : 02.09.2024
PIO replied on : 23.09.2024
First Appeal filed on : 21.10.2024
First Appeal Order on : 26.11.2024
2nd Appeal received on : 09.01.2025
CIC/SEBIE/A/2025/101070 Page 1 of 5
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"मेरे नमत्र नितेन्द्र कुशवाहा ने एक आरटीआई आवेिन आपके भारतीय प्रनतभूनत नवननमय बोर्ग (SEBI) में लगाया था। निसका िबाब आपके सेबी नवभाग िारा निया भी गया। उनके पुत्र आपके SEBI नवभाग िारा निए उत्तर की छायापनत संलग्न है । प्रश्न नंबर 3, 4, 5 में निन व्यक्तियों/संस्था के नाम पूछे गये है आपके नवभाग के िारा निए िाने वाले िवाब में इनके नाम बताने से इं कार नकया गया है प्रकरण से संबक्तित िस्तावेि की छायापनत िे ने से इन्कार नकया गया है उन व्यक्तियों के सम्बि से हमने यह समाचार सुना है नक उन्ोंने PACL Ltd में िमा धन को िे श नवरोधी गनतनवनधयां में खचग नकया है धनरानश के िु रुपयोग होने की घटना मेरे ननिी िाच से सत्य प्रमानणत हुई है । उसी प्रश्न उत्तर से संबंनधत मेरे प्रश्नों के उत्तर नबंिुवार िे ने की कृपा करें ।
1. क्या भारतीय प्रनतभूनत नवननमय बोर्ग (SEBI) आतं कवानियों के मििगारों का नाम बताने से र्र रहा है ?
2. क्या भारतीय प्रनतभूनत नवननमय बोर्ग (SEBI) आतं कवानियों के मििगारों को बचाना बहता है ?
3. आतं कवानियों के मििगारों के क्तखलाफ कानूनी कायगवाही िे शनहत की श्रेणी में आती है या अनैनतकता की श्रेणी में आती है?
4. क्या सूचना का अनधकार अनधननयम 2005 की धारा 8(g) यह कहती है नक अपने ही िे श में छु पे हुए िे श के िु श्मनों का नाम छु पाना चानहए?"
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"आपका प्रश्न स्पष्टीकरण / राय (मत) मां गे िाने िै सा है । तिनुसार, इसे सूचना का अनधकार अनधननयम, 2005 की धारा 2(च) के तहत यथा पररभानित "सूचना" नहीं माना िा सकता।"CIC/SEBIE/A/2025/101070 Page 2 of 5
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 26.11.2024 stated as under:-
"I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. On consideration, I concur with the response of the respondent that the said queries are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion from the respondent. I find that the said request cannot be construed as seeking 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this context, reliance is placed on the matter of Azad Singh us. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (order dated March 23, 2021), wherein, Hon'ble Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as "CIC") observed that "7. The Commission, after bearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observed that some queries of the appellant are in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice/confirmation/clarification from the CPIO and he has expected that the CPIO firstly should analyze the documents and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, be cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him". Accordingly, I do not find any deficiency in the response of the respondent.
In view of the above observations, I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/SEBIE/A/2025/101070 Page 3 of 5 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The appellant was present through video conference.
The respondent Mr. Pranjal Jaiswal, General Manager was present through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought was not 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 23.09.2024. The respondent further submitted that the appellant has sought clarification in his RTI application.
A written submission dated 30.04.2026 of the respondent is stated as under:-
"As noted in the FAA order the information sought is in nature of clarification and since interpreting information or providing clarification/explanation is not envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005. it is humbly requested that the appeal may be dismissed."
Decision:
In the light of the above facts, the Commission noted that the respondent has replied to the appellant vide letter dated 23.09.2024, no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter, accordingly, the appeal is disposed.
Sd/-
(Surendra Singh Meena) (सुरेंद्र ससिंह मीना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 06.05.2026 CIC/SEBIE/A/2025/101070 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंिीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. Hansaji I Prajapati
2. The CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of India, Sebi Bhawan, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051 CIC/SEBIE/A/2025/101070 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)