Central Information Commission
M. T. Thomas vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 15 May, 2026
CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801
M. T. Thomas ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Serious Fraud
Investigation Office (M/o. ... तवाद गण/Respondents
Corporate Affairs), New
Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.09.2024 FA : 29.10.2024 SA : 20.01.2025
CPIO : 16.10.2024 FAO : 05.12.2024 Hearing : 28.04.2026
Date of Decision: 15.05.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Kindly inform me the number of cases under investigation by SFIO, under the jurisdiction of the Chennai office, during the year (a) 2023 (2) 2024.
2. Please inform me the number of cases under the Chennai jurisdiction which were investigations have been concluded by SFIO, for the year (1) 2023 (2) 2024 Page 1 of 8 CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801
3. Please inform me the number of cases under the jurisdiction, pertaining to the State of Kerala, were investigations have been concluded by SFIO, for the year (1) 2023 (2) 2024
4. Please inform me the number of cases under the Chennai jurisdiction, pertaining to the State of Kerala, were investigations have been concluded by SFIO, for the year (1) 2023 (2) 2024
5. Kindly inform the number of cases where appropriate action / prosecution have been taken by SFIO, for the cases investigated during the year (1) 2023 (2) 2024..etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. (1) FY 2022-23-07 cases (2) FY 2023-24-06 cases
2. (1) FY 2022-23-03 cases (2) FY 2023-24-02 cases
3. No such data is maintained
4. No such data is maintained..etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.12.2024 observed as under:-
3.3 No further intervention is deemed warranted to the case. The instant appeal is thus disposed of.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.01.2025.Page 2 of 8
CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Deputy Director - participated in the hearing.
5. The appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to him till date. He averred that the CPIO's reply is unsatisfactory, incomplete, and evasive. Regarding the request for the number of cases under Chennai jurisdiction pertaining to the State of Kerala for the years 2023 and 2024, the plea that "no such data is available" is untenable when the total number of cases involved is only 13, and the information could easily have been identified from the addresses in the records;
alternatively, the names and addresses of those cases ought to have been furnished so that the he could identify the Kerala-related matters. With respect to point No. 6, the denial under Section 8(1)(h) is unjustified because disclosure of the names of companies against whom SFIO has already taken action/prosecution would not impede any investigation or prosecution process. Similarly, for points No. 7, 8, 10, and 11, merely informing whether the investigation period in the Exalogic Solutions Ltd., CMRL & KSIDC matter has been extended, the date up to which it has been extended, whether any interim report has been submitted, and furnishing a copy thereof if disclosable, cannot reasonably be said to impede investigation under Section 8(1)(h). The exemption has been invoked mechanically without establishing any nexus between disclosure and possible impediment to investigation. He stated that Respondent may be directed to provide complete and proper information. He insisted to impose maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the CPIO for malafide denial and failure to furnish information in accordance with law. A written submission dated 20.04.2026 in this regard has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. She averred that with respect to point No. 3 of the RTI Application, the data maintained by Page 3 of 8 CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801 SFIO is case wise and not based on the address of the Company under investigation. A Company registered in Kerala may have been investigated by any Unit of SFIO and not necessarily by Chennai Unit. The Applicant has mis understood the data given at Point No.1 as pertaining to all India data. Further, under single Order of Investigation multiple Companies and in some cases upto 50 Companies might be involved each with varied jurisdiction. She stated that not only is the data not readily available, compiling such data requires verification of hundreds of records across various jurisdictions. Accordingly, it was informed to the applicant that such data is not available. As regards information sought at point No. 4 even though the data sought was not readily available, based on the information received from field formations, the same was supplied to the Applicant during the First Appeal proceedings. Furthermore, at point No.6. the Applicant has requested for names of companies where appropriate action/ prosecution have been taken by SFIO. Since prosecution is ongoing in these cases, any disclosure regarding the same will prejudice prosecution proceedings and same was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. She submitted that at point No.7 to 11, the Applicant has requested for details such as period of investigation, date of extension, status of investigation, if any interim report is submitted and a copy of investigation report with respect to a case that was under investigation. Further, Since investigation is ongoing in the said case, any disclosure regarding the same will prejudice Investigation. Accordingly, the same was not provided as per Section 8(l)(h) of RTI Act. She stated that Information in prosecution complaint contains detailed information about the entity which may include commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. A written submission in this regard has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Investigation involves collecting various documents, examining witness, collecting intelligence from various foreign jurisdictions under treaty obligations, conducting search and Seizure etc. any disclosure of the Page 4 of 8 CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801 stage/status of investigation will prejudice the investigations as offenders will know the route map of investigation, may influence witness vi. Divulging of information may in some cases also result in absconding of witness/accused.
vii. Divulging the progress/status may lead to tampering of evidence viii. Accused/interested parties use details of internal approvals received through RTI to hinder investigation with protracted litigation. Recently Hon'ble CIC based on various High court orders held that advocates cannot invoke the Right to Information (RTI) Act to obtain case-related details in matters they are pursuing for clients. SFIO also faced instances where RTIs are filed with respect to Cases under investigation without disclosing the association of such applicants with the case.
Further many entities under investigation/investigated are Public/listed companies. Any disclosure of information related to prosecution proceedings might affect the share value/shareholders putting public money at risk. ix.
Χ. There is also a possibility of RTI being used by rival companies xi. Considering the above, information was not provided as per Section 8 (1)(h) of the Act. The commission has consistently upheld this view in multiple judgments including the decision in CIC/AT/A/2010/001202/SS in the case of Vijay Dayaram Chauhan Vs. O/o the Commr. Of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax.
xii. Information in prosecution complaint contains detailed information about the entity which may include commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party Page 5 of 8 CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801 xiii. In many instances companies under investigation/investigated will be undergoing Corporate Insolvency Proceedings under the IBC Code 2016. The aim of such proceedings is to recover maximum amount for the lenders. While SFIO submits relevant information to Courts/NCLT, Disclosure of any information related to an entity under CIRP to general public may adversely affect the CIRP process and thus cause harm to the lenders.
xiv. Due to the above mentioned reasons, information requested at Point No.6 to 11 was not provided as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The commission has consistently upheld this view in multiple judgments including the decision in CIC/SM/A/2011/000311 in the case of R. Venkataraman Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Kerala.
XV. The legislature being mindful of all these factors has provided as per Section 212(13) of the companies Act 2013 as below "(13) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, a copy of the investigation report may be obtained by any person concerned by making an application in this regard to the court."
xvi. Hence interested persons may approach the concerned Court and get a copy of the investigation report after completion of Investigation, by proving their locus rather than use RTI to prejudice the investigation/prosecution.
6. The Applicant has also stated that the information submitted was incomplete, that there was deficiency of service and wilful violation of RTI Act. In this regard, it is submitted that information to the extent available was readily provided and where information could not be provided as per section 8(1)(h), the same was communicated. The RTI application was processed strictly as per the law. The applicant has earlier alleged before the First Appellate authority that the information was not provided with in the stipulated time which was found to be false by the First Appellate Page 6 of 8 CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801 authority. Such unfounded and baseless allegations affect the morale of Public servants. Hence it is submitted that the contentions and allegations of the applicants be rejected outrightly..."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the Appellant sought information regarding SFIO cases under Chennai jurisdiction for the years 2023 and 2024, including the number of investigations, concluded investigations, Kerala-related cases, prosecutions initiated, and details concerning the investigation against Exalogic Solutions Ltd., CMRL and KSIDC. It is noted that Respondent clarified during hearing that data was maintained case-wise and not state-wise, that compilation would require examination of numerous records across jurisdictions. It is also pertinent to mention that disclosure of prosecution or investigation-related details could prejudice ongoing investigations, and Section 8(1)(h) was invoked by the PIO which was duly explained during hearing while asserting that all available information had already been duly supplied in accordance provisions of the RTI Act to the Appellant. Commission notes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त) Page 7 of 8 CIC/SFIVO/A/2025/102801 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Deputy Director-(Inv.) & CPIO, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (M/o. Corporate Affairs), B-3 Wing, 2nd Floor, Pt. Deen Dayal Antyodaya Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2 M. T. Thomas Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)