'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act

"The 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." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling pronounced on August 18, 2026, held that a regulatory public authority cannot be mandated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to collect, collate, or procure information from a third-party private entity to satisfy an information seeker.

A division bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat quashed a batch of Central Information Commission orders directing the Securities and Exchange Board of India to obtain records from the Bombay Stock Exchange, reiterating that the statute only obligates public bodies to disclose existing records in their possession or control.

The controversy arose after multiple applicants filed RTI applications before SEBI seeking distinct information regarding transactions and operational aspects concerning the Bombay Stock Exchange. The Central Information Commission ruled in 2009 that because SEBI has regulatory oversight and statutory powers to access records from stock exchanges under governing laws, it is duty-bound under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to procure such third-party information and furnish it to applicants. Aggrieved by these directions, SEBI and BSE approached the High Court through a batch of nine writ petitions, with Writ Petition No. 1710 of 2009 treated as the lead matter.

The primary question before the court was whether, under the provisions of the RTI Act, a public authority is obliged to collect or obtain information from a private body to furnish it to an applicant. The court was also called upon to determine whether a regulator's statutory power to call for records from third parties equates to "holding" or having "control" over such information under Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the Act.

Public Authority Only Obligated To Supply Information Existing In Its Possession

Interpreting the core definitions under the enactment, the bench observed that while Section 2(f) defines "information" broadly to include material relating to a private body accessible under any other law, it does not create an affirmative duty to proactively requisition data. The court stressed that an applicant can only demand information that is already part of the public authority's existing records at the time the application is lodged.

"A bare reading of the said provisions clearly shows that the public authority would be under obligation to provide information to an applicant applying under Section 6 of the RTI Act and that it shall be such information as held by it at the point in time the request for such information is made."

No Statutory Mandate To Create, Collate, Or Gather Non-Available Data

The High Court placed extensive reliance on the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011). The bench noted that the apex court explicitly cleared misconceptions regarding the scope of the transparency law, clarifying that where information is not maintained by a public authority under applicable rules, the law does not cast any obligation upon it to generate, collect, or collate such material from external sources.

"The Act does not cast an obligation upon the public 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."

Constitution Bench Ruling In Subhash Chandra Agarwal Affirms Limits Of Section 2(f)

The bench further examined the Constitution Bench ruling in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020), which endorsed the ratio in Aditya Bandopadhyay. The court emphasized that the words "held by or under the control of" under Section 2(j) are inherently restrictive and dictate that a regulator cannot be transformed into an information-gathering agent for citizens merely because it possesses regulatory powers under its parent statute.

"The right to information is not absolute and is subject to the conditions and exemptions under the RTI Act."

CIC Directions Contradicted Settled Apex Court Jurisprudence

The court noted that subsequent to the Supreme Court's authoritative rulings, the Delhi High Court in TRAI v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra (2025) and even the CIC itself had routinely declined to issue directions compelling regulators to seek external private records. The bench observed that the reasoning adopted in the impugned 2009 CIC orders ran directly contrary to established legal principles, rendering them completely unsustainable in law.

Allowing all nine writ petitions, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders of the Central Information Commission, conclusively establishing that regulatory public authorities like SEBI are not required to requisition records from private bodies or third-party exchanges to fulfill RTI requests.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2026