Central Information Commission
Deepak Girdhar vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 31 March, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/SEBIH/A/2019/643786
Mr. Deepak Girdhar ...अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Securities & Exchange Board of
India
Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 11-04-2019 FA : 16-05-2019 SA : 26-06-2019
CPIO : 09-05-2019 FAO : 13-06-2019 Hearing: 30-03-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information on seven points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Since the inception of SEBI Act, 1992, how many orders have been passed by officials of SEBI for violation of SEBI guidelines under various sections of SEBI Act, 1992. The number of orders should be provided separately on individuals, companies, brokers and sub-brokers;
(ii) How many SEBI orders as mentioned at point (i) have been challenged in Securities Appellate Tribunal by individuals, companies, brokers and sub-brokers, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 16.05.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 13.06.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been Page 1 of 4 provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri Santosh Sharma, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 09.05.2019, point- wise reply/information has already been provided to the appellant on his RTI application dated 11.04.2019. The respondent further submitted that the information sought by the appellant on point nos. (ii) to (vii) is voluminous information and collecting the information will disproportionately divert the resources of SEBI. Hence, the same was denied under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the information sought by the apepllant is voluminous in nature and may not be readily available with the CPIO in the manner as sought by the appellant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
7. Moreover, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing Page 2 of 4 information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
8. The Commission is satisfied with the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application of the appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 30-03-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Securities & Exchange Board of India
Sebi Bhawan, Plot No. C-4-A
G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051
2. Mr. Deepak Girdhar
Page 4 of 4