BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2273 of 2015
Dr. Atul Verma

Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated August 21, 2015, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter
dated September 21, 2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal
dated October 21, 2015 (received at SEBI on October 23, 2015), against the said response.
I have carefully considered the application, the response and the appeal and find that the
matter can be decided based on the material available on record.

2.

From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to
certain queries of his application wherein he had requested for information inter alia
regarding SEBIFMC merger.

3.

Queries 1 to 7, 13, 14, 16 to 19 and Part 3 & 4 of query 10 In his response, the
respondent informed the appellant that the information sought by himpertained to the
impending merger of FMC with SEBI pursuant to relevant provisions of Finance Act,
2015 and since the process of merger was still underway, disclosure of information may
impact the strategic and economic interest of the country. Further, the respondent
informed the appellant that information was confidential in nature and of business interest
and certain information was received in fiduciary capacity. In view of the aforesaid, the
respondent invoked the provisions of Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

4.

In this appeal, the appellant while reiterating his request for information, has inter alia
submitted: The minutes of the Committee comprising of SEBI and Forward Markets Commission
officers for considering the course of action in the matter of the merger of the latter with the former has
absolutely nothing to do with the economics of the state. It is further submitted that both the said
organizations are not indulging in any commercial activities by themselves but they regulate the said
Page 1 of 3

activities. The information sought for cannot be termed as Trade Secrets or Intellectual Property. It also
does not in any manner whatsoever relate to information concerning fiduciary relationship assuming without
admitting in any manner whatsoever, if such relationship, if any at all, exists between SEBI and FMC.
5.1

I note that in his response, the respondent had inter alia invoked the provisions of Section
8(1)(a) of the RTI Act to deny information to the appellant. In this regard, I note that the
information sought by the appellant may be strategic in nature and may relate to the
internal functioning of SEBI. I note that such strategic information, if disclosed, may
hamper SEBIs supervisory and regulatory role. In this regard, reliance is placed on the
observations of the Honble CIC in matter of Shri Ravi Ramaiya vs. SEBI (Decision dated
September 11, 2015).I, therefore, find that such information is exempted from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

5.2

Further, I note that in his response, the respondent had invoked the provisions of Sections
8(1)(d)and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to deny information to the appellant.In this context, I
note that while disposing of a batch of Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8396/2009, 16907/2006,
4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 and 3607 of 2007, the Honble
High Court of Delhi in its Order dated November 30, 2009, held that the 'person'referred to in
section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act will include a public authority. It also held that: In a fiduciary
relationship, the principal emphasis is on trust, and reliance, the fiduciarys superior power and
corresponding dependence of the beneficiary on the fiduciary. It requires a dominant position, integrity and
responsibility of the fiduciary to act in good faith and for the benefit of and to protect the beneficiary and not
oneself. I find that SEBI, being a public authority under the RTI Act as well as the
regulatory authority for the securities market, gets various documents from other
regulators, banks, etc. and the information contained in those documents are received in
'fiduciary relationship'. Such documents may contain information in the nature of commercial
confidence, disclosure of which may adversely impact the competitive position of the
concerned regulators,entities. I, therefore, find that information pertaining to commercial
confidence, which is received in 'fiduciary relationship' from regulators, banks, etc. is
exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

5.3

In view of these abovementioned observations, I find no deficiency in the respondents

response to the instant queries of the appellants application.

Page 2 of 3

6.

I, therefore, find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Place: Mumbai
Date: November 19, 2015

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 3 of 3