“Respondent addressed the query by providing the information regarding the agenda and minutes of the Board Meeting…”: SEBI, Part 1.

Appeal No. 43721 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43721 CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated July 02 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005of the RTI Act as the same relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and may cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the officials. However the respondent informed that the objective of the working group is given at point 2.7 page 2 of the report for public comments. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the said report on the SEBI website. The appellant in her appeal submitted that she had asked for the list and not their personal records such as phone numbers id details etc. Appeal No. 43721 I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. On consideration I find that the requested information pertains to personal information relating to details such as names of persons who were part of the group which worked and floated the Consultation Paper on the Review of Regulatory Framework for Investment Advisers on January 2020. I am of the opinion that even disclosing the names may reveal the identity of the persons and may cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. In this context the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwalheld that: “ 59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents in our opinion would indicate that personal records including name address physical mental and psychological status marks obtained grades and answer sheets are all treated as personal information. Similarly professional records including qualification performance evaluation reports ACRs disciplinary proceedings etc. are all personal information. Medical records treatment choice of medicine list of hospitals and doctors visited findings recorded including that of the family members information relating to assets liabilities income tax returns details of investments lending and borrowing etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive...". Further no larger public interest would be served in disclosing the information as sought by the appellant. In view of the same I agree with response of the respondent that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 6. Without prejudice to the above I note that the respondent has guided the appellant to access the objective of the working group which is available on the SEBI website. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 7. Query number 2 The appellant vide query number 2 sought the criteria on the basis of which people were shortlisted to become part of the group which worked and floated the Consultation Paper on the Review of Regulatory Framework for Investment Advisers on January 2020. The respondent in response to query number 2 informed that the information sought by the appellant is exempt under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act as the same pertains to the internal functioning of SEBI and relates to the systems and procedures followed by SEBI. Further the said information is strategic in nature disclosure of which may hamper the decision making by SEBI in its supervisory and regulatory role. The appellant in her appeal inter alia submitted that the information was sought in order to maintain transparency about criteria for shortlisting. Appeal No. 43721 9. On perusal of the query and the response provided thereto I note that the respondent denied the disclosure of information by invoking Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. In this regard I am of the opinion that the information sought by the appellant may be strategic in nature and may relate to the internal functioning of SEBI. Further I note that the such strategic information if disclosed may hamper SEBI’s supervisory and regulatory role. I therefore find that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. In view of these observations I find no deficiency in the respondent’s response. 10. Query number 5 the appellant vide query number 5 sought the following information “Share the criteria under which grandfathering provision was provided to existing RIA above 50 years of age.” 11. The respondent in response to the query informed that the information sought by the appellant is available at paraof the minutes of the SEBI Board Meeting dated February 17 2020. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the said minutes. The appellant in her appeal submitted that irrelevant information was provided. 12. On perusal of the query it appears that the query is in the nature of seeking clarification explanation from the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve problems raised by the appellant or to furnish replies to situational queries or to furnish clarification under the provisions of RTI Act. Similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Prem Prakash Prajapati vs. CPIO Railways RDSOof the RTI Act 2005. However the respondent provided the link for accessing the agenda and minutes of the Board Meeting dated February 17 2020 wherein amendments to SEBI Appeal No. 43721 Regulations 2013 were discussed and approved by SEBI Board. The appellant in her appeal submitted that irrelevant information was provided. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. On consideration I am inclined to agree with the response of the respondent that the query is vague and not specific. In this context I note that the Hon’ble CIC in Ms. Sarika Jain against National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited held that “As regards the first part i.e. copies of all documents in relation to the contracts mentioned in the RTI application the Commission finds that the term "all" used by the Appellant here is very vague and does not pin point the particular document she wants to obtain from the Respondents. The Appellant is therefore advised to be more specific and identify the documents she wants to obtain from the Respondents ..” In view of these observations the respondent did not have an obligation to respond to such vague and non specific query. 16. Notwithstanding the above I note that the respondent has addressed the query by providing the information regarding the agenda and minutes of the Board Meeting dated February 17 2020. Further the respondent also provided the link for accessing the same. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. In view of the above observations I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Place: Mumbai Date: August 11 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Anand Baiwar adjudicated in the matter of Shailja v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4371 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Ms Shailja had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 2nd of July, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 19th of July, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 19th of July, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 20th of July, 2021. The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that access to the requested information was refused. On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response provided to query numbers 1, 2, 5 and 6. In view of the submissions made by the appellant, Mr Baiwar was only dealing with the said queries in this appeal. The appellant, vide query number 1, sought the list of people who were part of the group which worked and floated the Consultation Paper on the Review of Regulatory Framework for Investment Advisers on January 2020.