Role Of RBI In Regulating Their Affairs Cannot Be Equated With Stock Exchanges & Role Of SEBI: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court was hearing Writ Petitions challenging the Order of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Justice M.S. Sonak, Justice Jitendra Jain, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court elucidated that the role of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in regulating their affairs cannot be equated with stock exchanges and the role of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
The Court was hearing Writ Petitions challenging the Order of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed, “Furthermore, the banks and the role of the RBI in regulating their affairs cannot be equated with stock exchanges and the role of SEBI in regulating the stock exchanges. In any event, the annual general reports, based upon information furnished by the various stock exchanges, can be said to constitute information related to third parties. Therefore, without following the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act, there was no question of directing even the limited disclosures that have been made.”
Senior Advocate J.J. Bhatt and Advocate Ashish Venugopal appeared for the Petitioners while Senior Advocates Sudip Sen, Pesi Modi, and Advocate Zerick Dastur appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The SEBI had instituted the Writ Petition to challenge the CIC’s Order to the extent it directed the CPIO (Chief Public Information Officer), SEBI to furnish a revised reply to Mr. Agarwal on points 1, 3, 4 and 5 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). Agarwal had instituted Writ Petitions to challenged the said Order to the extent that it did not furnish the entire information sought in the Application made to the CPIO, SEBI. The CIC had partly allowed the said Application seeking some information from the CPIO, SEBI under the RTI Act.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “Query Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 seek general information like inspection of all records, documents, files etc. on the subject matters of Query Nos. 1 to 5, weblinks, if any, providing information as sought under Query Nos. 1 to 5 and even file notings on movement of the RTI Petition.”
The Court agreed with the counsel that furnishing such vague information may not be possible. It added that while there may be no exemption as such provided in such situations, it is expected of an Applicant to seek information with a sufficient degree of precision and clarity so that the request for information can be processed within the timelines set out under the RTI Act.
“Mr Venugopal, however, relied on Jayantilal N. Mistri (supra) to submit that in this case, the RBI, which had raised a substantially similar defence, was ultimately directed to disclose its annual general reports concerning the banks. … Mr Venugopal advanced no serious contentions concerning Query Nos. 6 to 9”, it remarked.
The Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the CIC’s Order in so far as Query Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 was concerned, but set aside the same regarding Query Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petitions and remanded the case to CPIO for fresh consideration.
Cause Title- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:28136-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate J.J. Bhatt, Advocates Ashish Venugopal, Shivani Kumbhojkar, Omprakash Jha, Mitravinda Chunduru, and Valentine Mascarenhas.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Sudip Sen, Pesi Modi, Advocates Zerick Dastur, Akshay Vani, Sunilkumal Pillai, Archana Uppulliri, Kalpana Desai, Ritvik Kulkarn, and Kanika Sharma.
