TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Pesi Modi, Senior Advocate, a/w. Ms. Kalpana Desai, Mr. Kingshuk Banerjee, Mr. Arnav Mohanty, Mr. Ritvik Kulkarni, Mr. Arnab Ray and Mr. Surya Ravikumar, i/b. Khaitan and Co. for petitioner in WP/1693/2009, WP/1694/2009, WP/1695/2009 and WP/2210/2009 and respondent No. 3 in WP/1664/2009. JUDGEMENT: (PER MANISH PITALE, J): 1. A common question arises for consideration in these petitions, as to whether under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), a public authority is obliged to collect or obtain information from a private body, to furnish the same to an applicant seeking information under the provisions of the RTI Act. In the impugned orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), it is held that Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is obliged to obtain information from a third party, in this case, Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and to provide the same to the applicant seeking the same. The CIC has issued the said direction on its interpretation of the provisions of the RTI Act, particularly Section 2(f) thereof, which defines the term 'information'. 2. There are nine writ petitions in this group, of which five writ petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of the RTI Act, including Section 8 thereof. But, it is not under obligation to collect information from third parties such as BSE to provide the same to the applicants. 7. Attention of this Court was invited to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497, Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (CPIO) vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 and judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10. 8. It was submitted that the position of law laid down in the case of CBSE and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (supra), has been approved in the Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CPIO vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra), which is followed by the aforesaid judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of TRAI vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra (supra). It was further brought to the notice of this Court that even the CIC, in the light of the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court, has held in subsequent orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-- (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. 11. Third Party Information: (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions do not indicate that a public authority, like SEBI in the present case, which is a regulatory body empowered to call upon third parties to provide information in terms of its own governing statute, is under an obligation to obtain information from third parties to satisfy persons applying for such information. 15. In the case of CBSE and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows: "61. Some High Courts have held that Section 8 of the RTI Act is in the nature of an exception to Section 3 which empowers the citizens with the right to information, which is a derivative from the freedom of speech; and that, therefore, Section 8 should be construed strictly, literally and narrowly. This may not be the correct approach. The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blic authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also 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, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis supplied) 16. The specific observation made in the above-quoted paragraph No.63 of the said judgement clearly lays down the position of law to the effect that 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght and power of the public authority to get access to the information. It refers to dominion over the information or the right to any material, document, etc. The words "under the control of any public authority" would include within their ambit and scope information relating to a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force subject to the pre-imposed conditions and restrictions as applicable to access the information. 22. When information is accessible by a public authority, that is, held or under its control, then the information must be furnished to the information seeker under the RTI Act even if there are conditions or prohibitions under another statute already in force or under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, that restricts or prohibits access to information by the public. In view of the non obstante clause in Section 22 [Section 22 of the RTI Act reads: "22. Act to have overriding effect.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... approved the said observations in the following manner: "41. Para 63 quoted above has to be read with our observations on the last portion of clause (f) to Section 2 defining the word 'information', albeit, on the observations and findings recorded, we respectfully concur. For the present decision, we are required to primarily examine clauses (e) and (j) of sub-section (1) to Section 8 and Section 11 of the RTI Act." 19. The said position of law was subsequently followed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of TRAI vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra (supra). After referring to the aforementioned judgements of the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, in its said judgement, observed as follows: "13. The Supreme Court in the case of CBSE and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (supra) held that a public authority is obligated to disclose only the information it possesses or controls. It is neither required to collect information from a private entity, nor to compile or create information to satisfy an RTI applicant. Applying this principle, the petitioner is under no legal obligation to collect, compile, or generate the information sought b....