“The respondent observed that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and cannot be construed as “information”…”: SEBI, Part 2.
The respondent, in response to the query numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, observed that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and accordingly, cannot be construed as, “information”, as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In response to query number 4, the respondent informed that the appellant should refer to SCORES FAQs. The respondent also provided the web link for accessing the same. The appellant had filed an appeal on the ground that access to the requested information was refused. The appellant, in her appeal, has reiterated the queries raised in her application. Query numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7- On consideration, Mr Baiwar agreed with the observation of the respondent that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion from the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. It was found that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification under the RTI Act. For the query, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited (Judgment dated January 21, 2021), wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further, in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated January 17, 2013), it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC held: “… we would also like to observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants; he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO…”. In view of the said observations, it was found that there was no deficiency in the response. On perusal of the query number 4 and the response provided thereto, it was found that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant for accessing the information which is available in the public domain. Appellate Authority found that the query has been adequately addressed. In view of these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.
Appeal No. 43221 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43221 Geeta Khattar CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 15 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 of the RTI Act 2005. In response to query number 4 the respondent informed that the appellant should refer to SCORES FAQs. The respondent also provided the weblink for accessing the same. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed an appeal on the ground that access to the requested information was refused. The appellant in her appeal has reiterated the queries raised in her application. 5. Query numbers 1 2 3 5 6 and 7 On consideration I agree with the observation of the respondent that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification opinion from the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. I find that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 of the RTI Act. Consequently the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification under the RTI Act. In this context reference is made to the mater of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO United India Insurance Company Limitedwherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBII note that the Hon’ble CIC held: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to InformationAct the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO...”. In view of the said observations I do not find any deficiency in the 6. Query number 4 On perusal of the query and the response provided thereto I find that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant for accessing the information which is available in the public domain. I find that the query has been adequately addressed. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 7. 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. Appeal No. 43221 Place: Mumbai Date: July 14 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 