Verdictum: Bombay: Thursday, 20 August 2026.
In the matter, private individuals filed applications, seeking specific information from SEBI regarding market operations connected to the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited.
While setting aside
directions issued by the Central Information Commission compelling regulatory
bodies to procure information from private entities, the Bombay High Court held
that the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not cast any legal duty on a public
authority to collect or obtain records that are not currently held in its
official custody.
The Bench noted that although Section 2(f) of the Act includes information relating to a private body accessible under any other law, this statutory access power does not empower the information regulator to force a public authority into initiating fresh collection processes solely to satisfy an information seeker's request.
A Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, while referring to CBSE and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 observed, “…the RTI Act does not place an obligation upon a public authority like SEBI to collect or collate information not available with it and then to furnish the same to the applicants. The said position has been clarified in no uncertain terms”.
Senior Advocate J. J. Bhatt appeared for the petitioner.
The matter originated when private individuals filed applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking specific information from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding market operations connected to the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited. The regulatory body declined to provide the requested data on the fundamental ground that the documents were not maintained in its official database or existing records.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the applicants approached the Central Information Commission, which passed a primary order on May 25, 2009 holding that any information accessible to a public authority under its governing statute is automatically accessible to an applicant under the access regime. The Commission accordingly issued mandatory directions compelling the regulatory authority to obtain the required records from the stock exchange and supply them to the applicants.
The petitioners, alongside the stock exchange, challenged these directives through a cluster of nine writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, which granted interim stay orders and tagged the proceedings together to adjudicate the common question of statutory obligation.
Examining the statutory framework of Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), and 8, the High Court observed that an information seeker's right is strictly confined to records held by or under the direct control of the public authority at the time of the request. Relying upon the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court held that Section 22 does not erase preconditions or enable public authorities to undo statutory limitations on access. The Court reasoned that the statutory power of a regulator to call for third-party information under its parent Act cannot be translated into a statutory duty to gather non-available data under the disclosure statute.
Accordingly, the Court allowed all nine writ petitions, quashed and set aside the lead order dated May 25, 2009 together with all derivative orders passed by the Central Information Commission, and made the rule absolute.
Cause Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Yogesh Babulal Mehta & Ors. (WP No. 1664 of 2009).
Appearances: Petitioner: J. J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, Misha Patel, Omprakash Jha, Shivani Kumbhojkar, and Mugdha Narkar, Advocates.
(Click here to download the Judgment)
In the matter, private individuals filed applications, seeking specific information from SEBI regarding market operations connected to the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited.
 |
| Justice Manish Pitale, Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, Bombay High Court |
The Bench noted that although Section 2(f) of the Act includes information relating to a private body accessible under any other law, this statutory access power does not empower the information regulator to force a public authority into initiating fresh collection processes solely to satisfy an information seeker's request.
A Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, while referring to CBSE and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 observed, “…the RTI Act does not place an obligation upon a public authority like SEBI to collect or collate information not available with it and then to furnish the same to the applicants. The said position has been clarified in no uncertain terms”.
Senior Advocate J. J. Bhatt appeared for the petitioner.
The matter originated when private individuals filed applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking specific information from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding market operations connected to the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited. The regulatory body declined to provide the requested data on the fundamental ground that the documents were not maintained in its official database or existing records.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the applicants approached the Central Information Commission, which passed a primary order on May 25, 2009 holding that any information accessible to a public authority under its governing statute is automatically accessible to an applicant under the access regime. The Commission accordingly issued mandatory directions compelling the regulatory authority to obtain the required records from the stock exchange and supply them to the applicants.
The petitioners, alongside the stock exchange, challenged these directives through a cluster of nine writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, which granted interim stay orders and tagged the proceedings together to adjudicate the common question of statutory obligation.
Examining the statutory framework of Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), and 8, the High Court observed that an information seeker's right is strictly confined to records held by or under the direct control of the public authority at the time of the request. Relying upon the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court held that Section 22 does not erase preconditions or enable public authorities to undo statutory limitations on access. The Court reasoned that the statutory power of a regulator to call for third-party information under its parent Act cannot be translated into a statutory duty to gather non-available data under the disclosure statute.
Accordingly, the Court allowed all nine writ petitions, quashed and set aside the lead order dated May 25, 2009 together with all derivative orders passed by the Central Information Commission, and made the rule absolute.
Cause Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Yogesh Babulal Mehta & Ors. (WP No. 1664 of 2009).
Appearances: Petitioner: J. J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, Misha Patel, Omprakash Jha, Shivani Kumbhojkar, and Mugdha Narkar, Advocates.
(Click here to download the Judgment)
.JPG)
.JPG)
