Non-Public Authorities cannot be obligated against to collect information for the benefit of the Appellant: Appellant Authority, SEBI

Appeal No. 42921 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 42921 Anshuman Verma CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 24 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005in relation to a work place harassment issue reported by the victim employee. The respondent in response to the application informed that the query does not pertain to SEBI. Hence no information is available with SEBI. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has not mentioned any specific grounds for filing the appeal. The appellant in his appeal inter alia sought instruction with respect to getting a report filed by a publicly listed company. I have perused the application and I note that the respondent has categorically stated that the query does not pertain to SEBI. On consideration I do not find any reason to disbelieve the observation of the respondent that the requested information is not available with SEBI. In this context I note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Orsheld that “The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information and `right to Appeal No. 42921 information under clausesandof section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data or abstracts or statistics an applicant may access such information subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant.” Emphasis supplied). Further I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO SEBI held: “… if it does not have any such information in its possession the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given.” 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 nonavailable information. I note that the appellant in his appeal has sought instruction advice for getting the information from the company. In this context I note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Orsinter alia held: "A public authority is “...not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have as a public relation exercise provided advice guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act”. In view of the said observation I am of the view that the request made by the appellant in his appeal does not warrant consideration at this 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: July 02 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 Anshuman Verma v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4291 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 and Section 3 of the Right to Information Act. The appellant, Mr Anshuman Verma had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 24th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 2nd June 2021 on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 3rd of June, 2021. In his application on the 24th of May, 2021, the appellate was seeking the ‘Internal report filed by Aster DM Healthcare Ltd. (company) in relation to a workplace harassment issue reported by the victim/employee.’ The respondent said in response to this application that this particular query did not pertain to SEBI and hence they won’t be able to make this information available. The appellant did not mention any grounds for filing the appeal. However, he inter alia sought instruction with respect to getting a report filed by a publicly listed company. The appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar quoted the case of Central Board of Secondary Education &amp; Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &amp; Ors (Judgment dated August 9, 2011) held that “The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information’ and `right to information’ under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.” (Emphasis supplied). In addition, he also quoted Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated July 8, 2013), held: “… if it (SEBI) does not have any such information in its possession, the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given.” In view of these observations, the appellate authority 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.