Bombay HC Rules Public Bodies Need Not Collect Third-Party Data Under RTI
The Bombay High Court has ruled that public authorities cannot be directed to collect information from private entities to furnish it to individuals seeking details under the Right to Information Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram Shirsath delivered the ruling on Tuesday while hearing petitions filed by market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Bombay Stock Exchange in Mumbai. The petitions challenged a series of directives issued by the Central Information Commission dating back to May 2009.
In those orders, the Central Information Commission had instructed SEBI to procure specific details from the BSE and provide them to RTI applicants. The commission had taken the view that the market regulator's obligations under the transparency law extended beyond information already in its possession. According to the CIC, SEBI's mandate included gathering information from third parties operating under its regulatory purview, such as the BSE, and passing it on to applicants.
Challenging the commission's directives before the high court, both SEBI and the BSE contended that the RTI Act only requires a public authority to furnish information that it holds or controls. They argued that the statutory framework does not empower the CIC to compel a public body to actively gather information from third parties.
The high court agreed with these arguments, holding that the statutory mandate under the RTI Act requires a public authority to disclose information that is readily available with it at the time an application is submitted.
The bench observed that the legal provisions do not indicate that a regulatory body like SEBI, even if empowered under its governing statute to seek information from third parties, is under an obligation to collect such details merely to satisfy an RTI request.
The court further pointed out that the reasoning adopted by the Central Information Commission ran contrary to the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court. Concluding that the CIC directives could not be sustained, the bench quashed and set aside the May 2009 orders.
