The appellant filed an RTI appeal against SEBI's response to his queries. Query 1 sought dates of registration of portfolio managers, which SEBI said was available publicly. For Query 2, providing the voluminous data on pending complaints against portfolio managers would disproportionately divert SEBI resources. For Query 3, SEBI denied access to supporting documents submitted during portfolio manager registration, citing exemptions for information received in fiduciary capacity and personal information. The appellate authority upheld SEBI's responses, finding the information was either publicly available or exempt.
The appellant filed an RTI appeal against SEBI's response to his queries. Query 1 sought dates of registration of portfolio managers, which SEBI said was available publicly. For Query 2, providing the voluminous data on pending complaints against portfolio managers would disproportionately divert SEBI resources. For Query 3, SEBI denied access to supporting documents submitted during portfolio manager registration, citing exemptions for information received in fiduciary capacity and personal information. The appellate authority upheld SEBI's responses, finding the information was either publicly available or exempt.
The appellant filed an RTI appeal against SEBI's response to his queries. Query 1 sought dates of registration of portfolio managers, which SEBI said was available publicly. For Query 2, providing the voluminous data on pending complaints against portfolio managers would disproportionately divert SEBI resources. For Query 3, SEBI denied access to supporting documents submitted during portfolio manager registration, citing exemptions for information received in fiduciary capacity and personal information. The appellate authority upheld SEBI's responses, finding the information was either publicly available or exempt.
The appellant filed an RTI appeal against SEBI's response to his queries. Query 1 sought dates of registration of portfolio managers, which SEBI said was available publicly. For Query 2, providing the voluminous data on pending complaints against portfolio managers would disproportionately divert SEBI resources. For Query 3, SEBI denied access to supporting documents submitted during portfolio manager registration, citing exemptions for information received in fiduciary capacity and personal information. The appellate authority upheld SEBI's responses, finding the information was either publicly available or exempt.
being a public authority under the RTI Act as well as the regulatory authority for the securities market, gets various documents from stock exchanges, market participants, intermediaries etc. relating to market intelligence, etc. and the said information contained in those documents are received in ‘fiduciary relationship’. In this regard, reliance is also placed on the observations of the Hon'ble CIC in matter of Shri Ravi Ramaiya v. SEBI (Decision dated September 11, 2015). In view of the aforesaid, I agree with the observation of the respondent that the information sought by the appellant is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. 12. Further, I note that the requested information may contain personal information relating to the Principal Officers, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of such officers. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 decided on August 31, 2017), following its earlier judgments in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC [(2013) 1 SCC 212] and R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(2013) 14 SCC 794], inter alia, held that disclosure of personal information is exempt under RTI Act, unless the public authority is satisfied that a larger public interest is involved in disclosing the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (order dated November 13, 2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010) observed 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…” In view of these observations, I find that the requested information is also exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, I do not find any deficiency in the response. 13. 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. ——— Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
