SEBI not liable to reply to a flimsy query under section 2(f) of RTI Act

SEBI not liable to reply to a flimsy query under section 2(f) of RTI Act

The information sought through the appellant's query was more in the nature of eliciting clarification, opinion, etc. from the SEBI which does not fall within the purview of section 2(f) of the RTI Act

This matter pertained to an application filed by the appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The respondent, by a letter, responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal against the said response.

The appellant, had sought the information regarding the subject-wise bifurcation of questions in paper 1 & paper 2 of phase 1 and paper 2 of phase 2, what exactly will be asked in paper 1 of phase 2 and details regarding monthly gross and net earnings (including allowances) which anewly appointed Grade A officer receives.

The respondent, in response to query number 1, informed that the details with regard to PhaseI and Phase II examinations will be shared with all the candidates in due course. In response to query number 2, the respondent observed that the same is in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and accordingly, cannot be construed as "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In response to query number 3, the respondent provided the link on the SEBI website for accessing the details of monthly pay and allowances.

The appellant filed the appeal on the grounds that no exact information was provided to the appellant.

In this order of SEBI, it was observed by the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, that the respondent had clearly informed that the requested information will be shared with all the candidates in due course. It was understood that the recruitment process is not over and pre-mature disclosure might damage the ongoing process.

In this context, the Judgment of the Hon'ble CIC, in the matter of Shri U.R.M. Raju Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Trust was referred to wherein it was observed that if information regarding current recruitment processes is authorized to be disclosed even before such a processis completed, it is possible that it would pave the way for wholly absurd claims for disclosures.

Therein it was also opined that for example, a petitioner may, citing precedent, demand information regarding various aspects of a recruitment process undertaken by the Public Service Commissions and, such other recruitment bodies, even before such a process is completed and thereby throw the entire process into disarray. No public interest shall be served by such disclosures. On the contrary, such premature disclosures shall have a deleterious impact on public interest and will serve no public purpose. In view of the said observation, no deficiency in the response was found out.

The information sought through the appellant's query was more in the nature of eliciting clarification, opinion, etc. from SEBI, which does not fall within the purview of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of the Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors was relied upon wherein it was held that a public authority is "...not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.

Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provided advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act".

Further, the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI was also referred to wherein the Hon'ble CIC held 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, it was noted that the respondent cannot be obliged to provide a response to such request for information, as made by the appellant.

With respect to the query regarding pay and allowances, it was opined that the respondent had adequately addressed the query by guiding the appellant to access the requisite disclosures made by SEBI which is available in the public domain. There was no deficiency in the respondent's response to the appellant's query. Hence, the Appeal was dismissed.