Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Chandrakant C. Shah vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 12 November, 2025

                                   के ीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं      ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/638822

Chandrakant C. Shah                                             ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO: Securities And
Exchange Board                                            ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Of India, Mumbai

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 19.07.2024              FA       : 08.08.2024             SA     : 31.08.2024

CPIO : 02.08.2024             FAO : 29.08.2024                  Hearing : 04.11.2025


Date of Decision: 10.11.2025
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:

 I had earlier submitted a written complaint against Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) to higher officials of SEBI Mehta on 22.06.2024 with subject line request for revocation of liberty granted to AMFI for investor education and awareness due to its blatant misuse, and issue of directions to AMFI to immediately desist from further relaying its false and misleading ad campaigns. The complaint was sent by E-mail as well as by speed post. Copy of the complaint letter dated 22.06.2024 is attached herewith. In connection with the aforesaid complaint, kindly provide the following information:

1. Whether any enquiry or investigation has been launched based on my complaint

2. If answer to point no. 1 above is in the affirmative, kindly provide information about the status of the enquiry.

3. If answer to point no. 1 above is in the affirmative and enquiry is complete, kindly provide a copy of the enquiry / investigation report, and the action taken

4. If answer to point no. 1 above is in the affirmative and enquiry is pending, kindly provide information as to when the enquiry is expected to be completed.

5. If answer to point no. 1 above is in the negative, kindly provide information as to why no enquiry has been initiated against AMFI.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"Your queries are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as "information", as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 31.08.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Pranjal Jaiswal, Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had denied the information relating to action taken on his complaint, although he was entitled to know the details of enquiry, if so conducted.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed their initial reply and stated that the appellant did not seek material records as per the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) and the questions raised in his RTI application did not conform the said definition.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Prima facie, the appellant's attention is drawn towards the definition of "information" laid down in the RTI Act:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- ...

(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force";

Contrary, to the key elements drawn in the definition, the appellant did not seek information in any of the forms mentioned above, rather, he expressed his speculation in the form of questions, which could not have been addressed in the form of material records. The appellant is advised to frame a clear application seeking records as listed in Section 2 (f) instead of the Act. In the instant appeal, the queries not having conformed to the provision, the Commission finds no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 10.11.2025 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Securities And Exchange Board Of India, CPIO, RTI CELL, SEBI Bhawan, Plot No.C4-A, "G"

Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051 2 Chandrakant C. Shah Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)