Central Information Commission
Mr. Alok Shukla vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 23 May, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001838
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 23 May 2013
Date of decision : 23 May 2013
Name of the Appellant : Sh. Alok Shukla,
Through Advocate Sanjai Kumar Singh,
Office, F863, Rajajipuram, Lucknow
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Securities and Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C4A, G Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051
The Appellant was represented by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Aman Jain, AGM was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both the parties.
3. Referring to some case filed by the SEBI against him, the Appellant had raised a number of queries, mostly seeking the opinion of the CPIO on the legality of the SEBI's actions. The CPIO had replied to him with the observation that since the matter was before a competent court and all the records relating to the case were in its possession, the Appellant might get that information from the court itself. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal by upholding the stand taken by the CPIO.
4. The Appellant insisted that he had a right to get the information he had CIC/SM/A/2012/001838 sought. On the other hand, the respondent reiterated the position taken by the CPIO that since matter was pending before a competent court and all the relevant records had been already produced before that court, it was for that court to decide if any particular information should be disclosed or not.
5. We have carefully gone through the contents of the RTI application. We find that the queries of the Appellant are not so much in the nature of seeking information but are mostly intended to elicit the opinion of the Appellant on the decision of the SEBI to launch prosecution against him. Whether the prosecution has been rightly lunched or not cannot be decided by the CPIO or this Commission. It is for the competent court of law to decide if the prosecution launched by the SEBI is just. For example, the Appellant has wanted to know if criminal liability can be fixed on a person who is neither the director nor the shareholder of the company. Obviously, no CPIO can offer any particular information on this. While dealing with RTI, we should not forget that information means only an existing material record. The CPIO can provide the copy of the available records; he cannot create new records in order to address specific queries of the Appellant. What the Appellant wants here is clearly in the nature of seeking opinion and not information. Therefore, it is not within the capacity of the CPIO to offer any such opinion or comment. In fact, a legal counsel may be better placed to address the queries of the Appellant.
6. In the light of the above, we do not think that the CPIO is required to disclose any information in this case although we do not agree with the reasons given by the CPIO for not disclosing the information, namely, the matter is pending before a court of law.
7. The case is disposed off accordingly.
CIC/SM/A/2012/001838
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001838