Bombay HC Rules SEBI Not Bound to Gather Third-Party Info Under RTI
The Bombay High Court has ruled that public authorities are not required under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to collect information from private entities merely because an applicant has requested it.
A bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram Shirsat delivered the ruling while setting aside orders issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to obtain information from the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and furnish it to RTI applicants. Both SEBI and BSE had approached the High Court in Mumbai to challenge the commission's directions.
The CIC had previously interpreted the term “information” under the RTI Act to mean that SEBI was required not only to disclose information already existing in its records, but also to procure details from third parties such as the BSE to satisfy RTI queries.
The High Court rejected the CIC's interpretation, holding that SEBI's regulatory power to seek information from entities like the BSE does not impose a corresponding obligation to collect such material for RTI applicants.
The bench observed that the provisions of the RTI Act do not indicate that a public authority, acting as a regulatory body empowered under its governing statute to call upon third parties for information, is under any obligation to obtain such third-party information to satisfy RTI applications.
The court emphasized that the RTI Act requires a public authority to provide information that is already held by it. It does not require the body to function as an information-gathering agency by collecting or compiling material that is not in its possession.
SEBI had contended during proceedings that directing it to obtain records from third parties went beyond the statutory duties prescribed for public authorities under the RTI Act.
Finding merit in SEBI's stance, the High Court referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings establishing that the RTI Act does not oblige public authorities to collect or collate information that is not already available with them. The bench held that the CIC's reasoning was contrary to the law laid down by the apex court and accordingly quashed the challenged orders.
