Central Information Commission
Shri Anshul Raj vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India ... on 15 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01409
Dated, the 15th May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Anshul Raj
Respondents : Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Pursuant to Commission's notice dated 27.01.2009, this matter came up for hearing on 04.03.2009. Appellant was absent when called. Respondents were represented by Shri J. Shandilya, AGM.
2. Appellant's RTI-application dated 07.04.2008 was replied to by the CPIO on 14.05.2008 and the first-appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority on 17.07.2008.
3. Appellant's RTI-queries and the response of the respondents are analysed below for decision in the second-appeal:-
Items 1, 2 and 3:
These queries are related to the third-party ⎯ M/s.India Bulls Securities Limited ⎯ regarding details of their transaction tax up to 19.10.2006; transaction charges for the period 20.10.2006 to 18.10.2007; and other charges for the period 19.10.2007 to 31.03.2008.
Appellant had wanted this information to be given both in terms of the amount realized and the amount transferred to the Stock Exchanges and specific to query at Sl.No.3, Service Tax realized and paid on other charges mentioned in item no.1.
Since the requested information was not held by the respondents
- SEBI ⎯ a reference was made by them to the third-party, M/s.India Bulls Securities Ltd. The third-party declined to disclose this information on the plea that it related to their commercial confidence and its disclosure would seriously jeopardize the third-party's competitive position vis-à-vis other similarly placed entities. They also pointed out that the details as requested by the appellant, if disclosed, could be easily used to make an assessment about the third-party's client base, its turnover, and other key commercial and financial information, whose disclosure would be injurious to the third-party's commercial and competitive interests. They had cited exemptions in AT-15052009-01.doc Page 1 of 4 the RTI Act under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) in support of their contention not to disclose the above information.
While CPIO transmitted the reply received from the third-party, M/s.India Bulls Securities Ltd. to the appellant through his communication dated 14.05.2008, Appellate Authority decided that this category of information was not disclosable as it was barred under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Appellant has argued that in order to clear the air regarding whether the transaction taxes, transaction charges and other charges realized by the third-party from all its clients was actually transferred to the government and to the Stock Exchange as ordained under the regulatory instructions of SEBI, it was necessary that all this information is allowed to be disclosed. He cited larger public interest for disclosure of the information.
Decision:
I'm in agreement with the respondents and the third-party that the above-mentioned information has a direct bearing and relationship with the third-party's commercial information, disclosure of which would bring out into the open, matters which are strictly in the realm of commercial confidence, which could have the effect of compromising the third-party's competitive position vis-à-vis other competitors. Such information clearly attracts the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
In view of the above, it is directed that there shall be no disclosure obligation as regards this item of information.
Item Nos.4, 6 and 7:
These queries refer to SEBI guidelines regarding the rate of other charges; guidelines regarding transaction tax / transaction charges / other charges and the provision under which the third-party, M/s.India Bulls Securities Ltd allegedly changed the terminology in the contract notes issued by them from transaction tax to transaction charges and from transaction charges to other charges, etc. CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant as regards these points inviting his attention to SEBI's website under "Frequently Asked AT-15052009-01.doc Page 2 of 4 Questions" on secondary market at www.sebi.gov.in. A brief explanatory note relating to these points was also furnished.
Later, on the directions of the Appellate Authority dated 17.07.2008, "relevant FAQs on secondary market and SEBI Circular No.SEBI/MIRSD/DPS-1/Cir-31/2004 dated 26.08.2004" was also supplied to the appellant by CPIO.
Appellant's contention in the second-appeal is that respondents have been less than open about providing to him these items of information. He has questioned the Appellate Authority describing these queries as hypothetical and claimed that these related to specifics about SEBI guidelines regarding the charges that could be levied by a trading member on the clients.
Appellant is silent about the reply of the Appellate Authority and the CPIO that the information he had requested was already on the SEBI website in the form of Frequently Asked Questions. According to the respondents, as this information was already brought by them into the public domain, it was for the applicant to exercise due diligence to obtain it from the website. SEBI could not be asked to answer such queries once the information has been voluntarily brought into the public domain. Appellant seems to have certain grievances against a Member of the NSE. He may consider activating SEBI's grievance- settlement mechanism for redressal of his grievances.
Item No.5:
This query is about the number of constituents M/s.India Bulls Securities Ltd registered who had been charged transaction tax, transaction charges and other charges.
The third-party, M/s.India Bulls Securities Ltd declined to disclose this information as it referred to their client-base apart from being a fiduciary information held by the third-party on behalf of the constituents. They have cited RTI Act Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) in support of their contention that this information could not be divulged.
The Appellate Authority is in agreement with the third-party that such information was fiduciary in nature and was not liable to be disclosed. He also agreed with the third-party's submission that disclosure of this variety of information would compromise the third-
AT-15052009-01.doc Page 3 of 4 party's commercial interest and its competitive position vis-à-vis other similar entities.
According to the appellant, this contention was incorrect and the above-mentioned information was liable to be disclosed in public interest.
The assertion of public interest in this matter is not clearly understood. But the fact remains that given the nature of this information, it does relate to the constituents of the third-party, M/s.India Bulls Securities Ltd, and is held by that third-party in trust and confidence of its constituents. This brings the matter within the scope of Section 8(1)(e) and, as the information relates to the constituents as well as to the third-party, it also falls within the exclusivity of personal information of the constituents as well as the third-party which attracts Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
It is, therefore, directed that this information need not be disclosed to the appellant.
4. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
5 Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-15052009-01.doc Page 4 of 4