Central Information Commission
Neha Kataria vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 6 February, 2026
CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/643050
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/643050
Neha Kataria ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Financial
Reporting Authority-(NFRA) ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
(M/o. Corporate Affairs),
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22.06.2024 FA : 30.07.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 09.08.2024 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 04.02.2026
Date of Decision: 04.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
A. The order dated 09.05.2023, as issued by NFRA, decided to permit the auditors/audit firms, apart from appearing in person, to be also represented through legal counsel in oral hearings before the executive body. B. Instructions as requested in point (ii) above.
It is humbly requested to you to kindly consider this application and provide the requested document(s) and instruction(s) at your earliest convenience.Page 1 of 5
CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/643050
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
2. The communication under reference is an internal decision and is intended for auditors/audit firms and their advocates as part of relevant communication from NFRA in each individual case. The information sought by the applicant is denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Disclosures are available on NFRA's website under various tabs (About Us, Acts & Rules, e-Forms, Orders, Monitoring & Oversight, What's New, Career, Complaints/RTI/Disclosures, Activities, Projects and Initiatives and Media).
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Mritunjay Singh, Deputy General Manager- participated in the hearing.
6. The Appellant, by email dated 03.02.2026, sought a hearing through audio conferencing. Pursuant thereto, the Registry of the Bench contacted the Appellant on the mobile number furnished by her. However, upon being contacted, the Appellant stated that she was not prepared for the hearing.
7. The Respondent stated that the information sought in reference to order as issued by NFRA, to permit the auditors/audit firms to be also represented through legal counsel is actually not an order but an internal note and same is issued in individual cases which is part of show cause notice to the concerned auditors/audit firms. Since the information Page 2 of 5 CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/643050 sought relates to personal information of third party the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He averred that NFRA, in its communication to the individual auditors/ audit firms against whom any proceedings are undertaken while granting a personal hearing, invariably includes the position that they can be represented by their legal counsels. Representation of auditors and audit firms by legal counsel, if they choose, is relevant to those auditors/ audit firms against whom any proceedings/ action is undertaken A written submission dated 28.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..I am directed to refer to the Central Information Commission's (CIC) notice dated 08.01.2026, on the subject mentioned above and to state that RTI application filed by the applicant, Ms. Neha Kataria, dated 22.06.2024, was examined by the CPIO, National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA), and being an internal order was considered exempt being covered under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005. This was reiterated by the First Appellate Authority.
2. As evidenced by the appellant's submission herself, it is submitted that the fact the auditors/audit firms against whom professional misconduct proceedings have been initiated can be represented in the personal hearings before the Authority through their legal counsel is a position submitted by NFRA in the Hon'ble Courts, as has also been referred by the appellant in Annexure-A to her RTI Application that encloses the Hon'ble Delhi HC order, which is public record. This information is, therefore, already known to the applicant.
3. NFRA, in its communication to the individual auditors/ audit firms against whom any proceedings are undertaken (copies enclosed), while granting a personal hearing, invariably includes the position that they can be represented by their legal counsels. Representation of auditors and audit Page 3 of 5 CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/643050 firms by legal counsel, if they choose, is relevant to those auditors/ audit firms against whom any proceedings/ action is undertaken and as the appellant is neither of the two, the purpose of the present RTI application and subsequent appeals is not clear.
4. It is kindly requested that this information may please be taken on record. The concerned CPIO would be attending the hearing on 04.02.2024, as directed by CIC..."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate response has been duly provided to the Appellant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. It is noted that as submitted by the CPIO there is no order as sought by the Appellant rather an internal note is case specific and permission to be represented through legal counsel is mentioned in the show cause notice issued to the respective auditors/audit firms and same is exclusive for those firms and is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
8. In view of foregoing, the submission made by the Respondent is upheld, however, the PIO is directed to furnish a copy of written submission dated 28.01.2026 to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
9. Further, it will not be out of place to mention that NFRA safeguards the credibility of financial statements, which are relied upon by investors, lenders, regulators, and the public at large. Any orders, directions, circulars, and policy decisions affecting audit practices and standards should be placed in public domain for protecting public interest by strengthening trust in financial reporting. There is no denying that the Respondent is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. Accordingly the Respondent public authority is advised to place the maximum information related to Page 4 of 5 CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/643050 various circulars/policy decisions/orders issued by their department on their official website as per the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI in the larger public interest. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Deputy General Manager & CPIO, National Financial Reporting Authority-(NFRA) (M/o. Corporate Affairs), 7th Floor, Hindustan Times House, 18-20--K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2 Neha Kataria Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to publish following information or following categories of information in compliance with section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005- Any orders, directions, circulars, and policy decisions affecting audit practices and standards .
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)