“The appellant was also advised to refer to the website for updated information from time to time.”: SEBI, Part 2.

Appeal No. 43621 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43621 Surbhi Gandhi CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated June 14 2021 under the Right to Information Act 2005 of RTI Act. In response to query numbers 2 3 4 5 and 6 the respondent informed that the information sought is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market. Hence the same is not available with SEBI. In response to query number 7 the respondent informed that the query is vague and not specific and hence cannot be construed as “information” as defined in Section 2(f) of RTI Act. With respect to query numbers 8 and 9 the respondent informed that if any regulatory action is taken by SEBI the same would be Appeal No. 43621 available in the public domain on the SEBI website. The appellant was also advised to refer to the website for updated information from time to time. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed an appeal on the ground that access to the information requested was refused. 5. Query number 1 I note that the appellant sought reasons for default of brokers. On perusal of the query it appears that the same is in the nature of seeking clarification opinion from the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. I find that the said query cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2of the RTI Act. In this context reference is made to the mater of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO United India Insurance Company Limited wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBII note that the Hon’ble CIC held: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to Information Act the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO...”. In view of the said observations the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification opinion under the RTI Act. 6. Query numbers 2 3 4 5 and 6 On consideration I do not find any reason to disbelieve the observation that the requested information is not available with SEBI as the same is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market. In this context I note that the Hon’ble CIC did not find any need to intervene in the matter of Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Indiawhile observing that “10. the respondents can provide only that information which is existing and available with them and the RTI Act does not mandate it for the respondent authority to create information if it is not collected and collated in the normal course of their duties. The Commission therefore does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.” In view of these observations I find that the information sought by the appellant was not available with SEBI and therefore the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such non available information. 7. Query number 7 Upon a perusal of the query I note that the same is vague and not specific. Further it is difficult to ascertain what exact information has been sought by the appellant. I am inclined to agree with the observation of the respondent that the request for information made therein was vague and not specific and the same cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this Appeal No. 43621 context I note that in the matter of Shri S. C. Sharma vs. CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of Indiathe Hon’ble CIC held: “Since the Appellant had not clearly stated what exact information he wanted the CPIO could not have provided any specific information to him. We would like to advise the Appellant that he might like to specify the exact information he wants from the SEBI and prefer a fresh application before the CPIO.” In view of these observations I find that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is not specific. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 8. Query numbers 8 and 9 I note that the appellant sought information regarding action taken against brokers clearing members NSE and other agencies for various broker defaults. In his response I note that the respondent informed the appellant that information with regard to any regulatory action taken by SEBI was available on the SEBI website. Upon a consideration of the aforementioned I find that the requisite information as available with SEBI in respect of the queries was provided by the respondent. I therefore find no deficiency in the respondent’s response. 9. Without prejudice to the foregoing I note the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Shri K. Lall vs. Shri M. K. Bagri Decision dated April 12 2007) held that once information is placed on a website or in the public domain accessible to the citizens that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and thus ceases to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Further I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Delhi vs. CBSE New Delhiobserved: “The Commission has held in the case CIC AT A 2007 00112 dated 12.4.2007 that once the information is brought in to the public domain it is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Registrar of Companies and others vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Another decided on 1.6.2012 has held that Right to Information is specifically conferred by the RTI Act is that information which is held by or under the control of any public authority . In the light of the above the Commission cannot accept the contention of the appellant relating to the information available on the website be provided …” I therefore find that no interference is warranted at this stage. 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 09 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: It was noted that the appellant sought reasons for default of brokers. On perusal of the query, it appears that the same is in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion from the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. It was found that the said query cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this context, reference is made to the matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited (Judgment dated January 21, 2021), wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further, in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated January 17, 2013), it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC held: “… we would also like to observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants; he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO…”. In view of the said observations, the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification/opinion under the RTI Act. On consideration of queries 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Mr Baiwar did not find any reason to disbelieve the observation that the requested information is not available with SEBI as the same is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market. In this context, it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC did not find any need to intervene in the matter of Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Order dated December 28, 2016) while observing that “10.…… the respondents can provide only that information which is existing and available with them and the RTI Act does not mandate it for the respondent authority to create information if it is not collected and collated in the normal course of their duties.  The Commission, therefore, does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.” In view of these observations, it was found that the information sought by the appellant was not available with SEBI and therefore, the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such non– available information.