Central Information Commission
Geeta Khattar vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 18 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/665512+
CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/664279+
CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/663482
Geeta Khattar ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: SEBI, Mumbai
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint(s):
RTI : 19.09.2022, FA :14.10.2022,
Complaint(s) : Nil
05.11.2022 & 25.07.2022 17.11.2022 & 18.08.2022
CPIO : 13.10.2022, FAO : 20.10.2022,
Hearing : 11.03.2024
15.11.2022 & 17.08.2022 30.11.2022 & 25.08.2022
Note: The instant matter(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the
same parties and the same subject matter.
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Complaint No.- CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/665512
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2022 seeking information through 8 points in the following manner:
1. "Please provide the authority's name i.e. responsible and liable to provide information that pertains to the online portal SCORES.Page 1 of 11
2. Please provide information regd. the online portal names with which SCORES online portal is integrated /interconnected.
3. Please provide information regd. the online portal names with which CPGRAMS online portal is integrated/interconnected
4. Please provide the name of all the online portals where SEBIs dealing officials dealt with the investor cases/complaints/grievances etc. online.
5. Please provide the authority's name that dealt with case no. DOEAF/E/2020/01360 and DOEAF/E/2020/01377 on CPGRAMS." etc. 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. "The complaint handling process in SEBI is a collective process in which different officers at different level contribute.
However, the names of the SEBI officials are available on SEBI website at the following link: https://www.sebi.gov.in/orgchart-grid.html.
2. Your query is vague and not specific. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as "information" as defined U/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Para No. (iii), (iv) & (v) :- The queries pertaining to CPGRAMS complaint may be sough directly from CPGRMS."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 20.10.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.
Page 2 of 11Complaint No:- CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/664279
2. The Complainant filed RTI application dated 05.11.2022 seeking information as under:
"1/ u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005, please provide a PDF copy of the Order issued by SEBI where Kotak Securities CEO, Directors, Compliance Officer, and management officials have been punished for imprisonment (jail term) and a large penalty amount that has been imposed by SEBI on Kotak Securities under MAJOR OFFENSE / FORGERY that was made by him (Kotak) in the official Format of Contract Note (i.e. Bill / Invoice) (PRIMA FACIE proofs are attached herewith.)"
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The query is vague and not specific. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as "information" as defined u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, orders passed by SEBI, if any are available o the SEBI website at the link www.sebi.gov.in under the section. SEBI Home> Enforcement> Orders."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 30.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.
Complaint No.:- CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/663482
3. The Complainant filed RTI application dated 25.07.2022 seeking information as under:
Page 3 of 11"The following RTI application is registered under 2(j)(ii), 2(f), 2(i) of the RTI Act 2005, the CIC order no. CIC/NIFTY/A/2019/117177, dated 08/09/2020 plus CIC/WPCSL/C/2019/635310, dated 01.09.2020 and under sections 2.2.a plus d of the Suo Moto disclosure guidelines, issued by the DOP&T during the year 2013 and 2019.
1/ u/s 2(j)(ii) of the RTI act 2005, please provide a CERTIFIED COPY of the reply document i.e. provided by the CPIO, SEBI under the RTI application no. SEBIH/R/T/22/00161."
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.08.2022 while referring to multiple RTI Applications stated that the information sought for has been already provided to the Appellant.
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2022. The FAA vide order dated 25.08.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.
Hearing & Proceedings:
4. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Santosh Kumar Mishra, Chief General Manager & CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Respondent reiterated the replies provided to the Complainant and invited the attention of the bench to a common observation of the FAA recorded in all his orders as under:
"I have perused the applications and the response provided thereto. On consideration, I find that point wise reply has been provided to the queries raised by the appellant. Further, I find that the respondent has adequately addressed the applications by providing the information available with him and also advising the appellant to refer Page 4 of 11 to the information already provided with respect to previous applications filed by the appellant. I find that no further intervention of this forum is warranted at this stage. However, from the information available on the RTI Portal, I note that the appellant has filed numerous applications under the RTI Act seeking information with respect to complaints filed by her in various government portals. Further, the appellant has filed 252 appeals with this forum through the online RTI Portal. I am constrained to state that the appellant has been filing complaints with various organizations and then following up the same with multiple applications/ appeals on the RTI Portal. I note that most of the applications are repetitive in nature."
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the information sought for by the Complainant in the instant RTI Applications; her grounds of appeal before the FAA as well as the grounds of the complaint are in the form of expressing conjecture; insisting on clarifications and deductions to be provided on speculative queries; filing a complaint and prefixing the contents of the complaint by stating - 'prior to going through the second appeal'; asking for action against CPIO under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code, all of it suggests a confused, misplaced, frenzied and vindictive approach of the Complainant against the Respondent under the garb of exercising her right to information. For better appreciation of the said observation, the Commission deems it fit to verbatim quote the grounds of complaint stated inter alia by the Complainant across the three instant cases as under:
CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/665512 "I request the CIC to note that there has a MASSIVE / HUGE ONLINE FINANCIAL CRIME has been going on where the institution SEBI, NSE, BSE Exchanges, DEA - MOF, and other departments concerned officials have been playing a vital role since the year 2015
- 2016, where the Stockbrokers firstly, withdraw/undertake (Mis appropriate) hard earning of the innocent investor's and thereafter, the dealing officials, CPIO, Appellate, (RTI), the Vigilance Officers and other concerned officials EITHER close the applications on FAKE GROUNDS and by using FAKE METHODS OR do not deal with the applications. (PRIMA FACIE proofs are attached herewith where SEBI firstly, closed the case numbers Page 5 of 11 DOEAF/E/2020/01360 & DOEAF/E/2020/01377 on FAKE GROUNDS and by using FAKE METHODS, and later on, SEBI did NOT provide me copies of the Orders under points no. 6 & 7 under this RTI application whereas u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005, SEBI is bound to provide me copies of the Orders).
The CPIO and Appellate, SEBI are also the hidden partners of the Stockbrokers, therefore, NEITHER honor the provisions of the RTI Act NOR provide me with information, also do NOT provide me a CERTIFIED COPIES of the Orders. As per the attached proof, Appellate, SEBI closed nine 9 appeals under the same / one / single ground whereas all the nine 9 applications are different.
Therefore, https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf 166A. Public servant disobeying direction under law (Four 4 prayers are under the complaint) 1/ Please inform SEBI to provide the percentage of the RTI applications which I registered and the same were dealt with by the CPIO and Appellate, SEBI, where the GOI Act, guidelines, Orders, judgement etc. were followed by both and provided me information under the provision of the RTI Act.
2/ Please inform SEBI to replace the CPIO and Appellate (appoint new PIO plus Appellate) if SEBI don't provide the CIC about percentage of RTI applications where GOI Act, guidelines, Orders, judgement etc. were honored by both & provided me information under the provision of RTI Act.
3/ Please inform SEBI to reopen all the RTI applications and provide me information under the provisions of the RTI Act where information is NOT provided to me previously.
4/ I request the CIC EITHER prove if CPIO and Appellate, SEBI honor the GOI Act, guidelines, Orders, judgement etc. OR book CPIO and Appellate, SEBI under section 166A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) for disobeying directions under the law.
Prior to issuing the Order under the complaint, I request the honorable CIC to go through the PRIAM FACIE proofs and know that SCORES / CPGRAMS CASE NO. DOEAF/E/2020/01360 & DOEAF/E/2020/01377 were firstly closed by SEBI on the grounds of the letters and emails during the year 2020, and later on, during the year 2021, SEBI admitted/accepted/clarified that letters and emails issued by SEBI are RESPONSES and Page 6 of 11 NOT the Orders but in point no. 6 & 7 under the subject RTI, still, SEBI did NOT provide me CERTIFIED PDF COPIES OF THE ORDERS WHICH ARE REQUESTED (UNDER POINTS NUMBERS 6 & 7) AGAINST THE SCORES / CPGRAMS CASE NO.
DOEAF/E/2020/01360 & DOEAF/E/2020/01377 WHEREAS SEBI is bound."
CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/664279 Prior to going through the second appeal, I request the CIC to go through the GOI official weblinks and note that as per u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005, I am under validation to obtain a copy of the Order i.e. issued by the department. As per the guidelines where the following is provided by the DoP&T, It need be noted that the provision in the Act simply means that if the information is sought in the form of photocopy, it shall be provided in the form of photocopy, or if it is sought in the form of a floppy or in any other electronic mode, it shall be provided in that form, It does not mean that the PIO shall re-shape the information. The Public Information Officer / First Appellate Authorities should keep in mind the salient features of the guidelines in supply of information to the information seeker and disposal of first appeal respectively, so that the information seekers may not resort to filing second appeals before the Information Commissions. On the other side, as per the CIC Order where the following is provided by the CIC, The RTI application, even if repetitive, cannot be allowed to be left unattended as a reply to each and every RTI application is compulsory under the Act, even if repeating the earlier replies if so warranted, Exercise right to information responsibly. The CIC has also provided, Multiple RTI Applications, Even if the complainant had filed 47 RTI applications, it is the duty of the PIO under the provisions of the RTI Act to dealt each application separately & give reply to the RTI applicants after proper application of mind. The Supreme Court of India has provided that When information is accessible by a public authority, that is, held or under its control, then the information must be furnished to the information seeker under the RTI Act."
CIC/SEBIH/C/2022/663482 "A/ I request the hon'ble CIC to note that u/s 2(j)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005, I am under validation to obtain CERTIFIED COPIES of the records. On the other side, the hon'ble CIC issued Orders where held that The RTI application, even if repetitive, cannot be allowed to Page 7 of 11 be left unattended as a reply to each and every RTI application is compulsory under the Act, even if repeating the earlier replies if so warranted, Exercise right to information responsibly. The CIC has also held that Multiple RTI Applications, Even if the complainant had filed 47 RTI applications, it is the duty of the PIO under the provisions of the RTI Act to dealt each application separately & give reply to the RTI applicants after proper application of mind.
B/ I request the hon'ble CIC to note that the breach of the Gazette of India plus the CIC Orders have been made and CERTIFIED COPIES of the records have NOT been provided under sub. RTI application numbers, also thirty-nine 39 applications are disposed of on the same ground / under one 1 application, therefore, 1/ Please book the CPIO and Appellate, SEBI, under Section 166A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) for disobeying directions under the law."
7. It is pertinent to note that the sum and substance of these complaints is that the Complainant insists upon challenging the claim of the Respondent that her RTI Applications are aplenty and repetitive. In the process, the grounds of complaint seek for answers to questions like- the percentage of RTI Applications/Appeals filed by her; having the CPIO & FAA replaced and having her RTI Applications and Appeal(s) reopened. Now, as far as the RTI Applications under reference are concerned, the Commission does not find any infirmity with the reply provided by the CPIO. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Complainant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
Page 8 of 11"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
(Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.Page 9 of 11
Section 2(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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. Succinctly put, the Commission is unable to appreciate the contentions of the Complainant and finds no scope of action in the instant matters.
9. The Complaint(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 14.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड)
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 10 of 11
Addresses of the parties:
1. THE CPIO, RTI Cell,
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhawan, Plot No C4-A, "G" Block
Bandra - Kurla Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai - 400051
2. Geeta Khattar
Page 11 of 11