“the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act..”: Appellate Authority, SEBI.
The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Anand Baiwar adjudicated in the matter of A Sirajudeen v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4348 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr A Sirajudeen had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 4th of June, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 15th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 15th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 17th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellate was seeking the following information: “I spoke to SEBI helpline, on 04/June/2021. I told, I want to complain about Trade24x and Digitex technologies.. I also said that the above 2 is FOREX related.. SEBI helpline replied me that, regarding FOREX, need to complain RBI, but not SEBI.. is it true sir ? I just want to know.. Forex will comes under SEBI (SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA) ? OR Forex will comes under RBI (Reserve Bank of India) ? OR Any other Department.” The respondent, in response to the application, informed that the queries are in the nature of seeking/ opinion clarification and accordingly, cannot be construed as “information”, as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The respondent also advised the appellant to lodge his grievance (if any), on the SCORES portal and also refer to the FAQs available on the SEBI website. Further, the respondent also provided the toll free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters relating to securities market. The appellant has not mentioned any specific ground for filing the appeal. The appellant, in his appeal, reiterated his queries raised in the application. For the queries, 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 these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response. On perusal of the submission, it appears that the appellant has grievance regarding Trade24x and Digitex technologies. Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow (Decision dated September 6, 2012), held: “The Appellant is informed that … redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act rather it is up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum…” No defiency in the response was found.
Appeal No. 43421 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43421 A Sirajudeen CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated June 04 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 OR Forex will comes under RBIOR Any other Department.” The respondent in response to the application informed that the queries are in the nature of seeking opinion clarification and accordingly cannot be construed as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The respondent also advised the appellant to lodge his grievanceon the SCORES portal and also refer to the FAQs available on the SEBI website. Further the respondent also provided the toll free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters relating to securities market. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has not mentioned any specific ground for filing the appeal. The appellant in his appeal reiterated his queries raised in the application. Appeal No. 43421 5. 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 2of 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 Limited wherein 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 response. 6. On perusal of the submission it appears that the appellant has grievance regarding Trade24x and Digitex technologies. In this context I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India Lucknowheld: “The Appellant is informed that … redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act rather it is up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum…”. In view of these observations I find that if the appellant has any grievance the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the RTI Act. Further I note that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant by providing information with respect to lodging his grievance if any on the SCORES portal. Accordingly I find no deficiency in the response. 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. Place: Mumbai Date: July 16 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 