In a significant ruling on Tuesday, the Bombay High Court affirmed that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), public authorities are not legally required to obtain information from private entities solely to provide it to RTI applicants. This decision was rendered in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Yogesh Mehta & Ors., where a Division Bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat overturned orders issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The orders in question had directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to procure specific information from the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) to satisfy RTI applications. Both SEBI and BSE contested these directives, leading to the High Court’s intervention.
In its judgment, the Court elucidated, “The provisions of the RTI Act do not imply that a public authority, such as SEBI in this context, which functions as a regulatory body with statutory powers to request data from third parties, is compelled to obtain information from such entities solely to fulfill RTI requests.”
The CIC had previously interpreted the RTI Act’s definition of “information” to mandate SEBI to provide not only data in its possession but also to actively gather information from private entities like BSE at the behest of citizens. This interpretation was central to the legal question before the High Court: whether a regulatory body’s power to request information could mandate it to collect third-party data for RTI purposes.
SEBI contended that obligating a regulator to act as an intermediary for gathering information for RTI applicants oversteps the RTI Act’s statutory limits. The High Court corroborated this viewpoint, stating that a public authority is only required to disclose information in its possession at the time of the RTI request.
More Read
The High Court also leaned on precedents from the Supreme Court, which have consistently clarified that the RTI Act does not impose a duty on public authorities to collate or collect information not already in their records. The Court concluded that the CIC had exceeded its jurisdiction in this instance.
“We find that the reasoning of the CIC contradicts the legal position as clarified by the Supreme Court, and therefore, cannot be upheld. The challenged orders are hereby quashed and set aside,” the Court declared.
The ruling effectively nullified the CIC’s orders that were under challenge. Senior advocate JJ Bhatt, along with advocates Misha Patel, Omprakash Jha, Shivani Kumbhojkar, and Mugdha Narkar, represented SEBI, briefed by The Law Point. Senior advocate Pesi Modi, with advocates Kalpana Desai, Kingshuk Banerjee, Arnav Mohanty, Ritvik Kulkarni, Arnab Ray, and Surya Ravikumar, represented BSE, briefed by Khaitan and Co.
