Case Note & Summary
The matter involved a group of nine writ petitions filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (BSE) challenging orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC). The common question in all petitions was whether under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a public authority is obliged to collect or obtain information from a private body to furnish it to an applicant seeking information. The CIC had held that SEBI, as a public authority and regulator, was under an obligation not only to provide information available with it but also to collect such information from third parties like BSE and provide it to the applicants. Writ Petition No.1710 of 2009 filed by SEBI was treated as the lead petition because the CIC order dated 25 May 2009 impugned therein was the basic order upon which the other impugned orders were passed. The nine writ petitions comprised five filed by SEBI and four by BSE. All writ petitions were tagged together after Rule was granted, and the impugned orders were stayed. The original applicants who sought information from SEBI did not appear before the High Court despite service of notice. The petitioners argued that on a conjoint reading of Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 6, 8, 11 and 18 of the RTI Act, a public authority is obliged only to provide information available with it at the time of the application, subject to the exemptions under Section 8, and that it is not under an obligation to collect information from third parties such as BSE. They relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, and a Delhi High Court decision in Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10, which they submitted had settled the position in their favour. The petitioners also pointed out that the CIC itself had subsequently held, in the light of the Supreme Court's clarification, that SEBI is not under an obligation to collect information from third parties. The High Court noted that the question had arisen in the context of the CIC's interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines 'information' and includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law. The Court reproduced the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, including the definition of information, public authority, right to information, and the exemption provisions under Section 8.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Obligation of Public Authority to Collect Information from Private Body - Public Authority Not Obliged to Collect Information from Third Parties Under Section 2(f) - Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 6, 8, 11, 18 - The CIC directed SEBI to obtain information from BSE and provide it to RTI applicants based on its interpretation of Section 2(f). The petitioners contended that a public authority is only obliged to furnish information already available with it, subject to exemptions under Section 8, and cannot be compelled to collect information from private bodies. The Court considered the provisions and the Supreme Court precedents in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, 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.
Law Points
- Under the Right to Information Act
- 2005
- a public authority is obliged to provide information available with it
- subject to exemptions under Section 8
- but is not obliged to collect or obtain information from a private body
- Section 2(f) of the RTI Act does not impose an obligation on a public authority to collect information from third parties
- the law on this point has been settled by Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 113
Writ Petition No. 1664 of 2009 along with Writ Petition Nos. 1033 of 2010, 1034 of 2010, 1032 of 2010, 1710 of 2009, 1693 of 2009, 1694 of 2009, 1695 of 2009 and 2210 of 2009
Manish Pitale, J. and Shreeram V. Shirsat, J.
Mr. J. J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Ms. Misha Patel, Mr. Omprakash Jha, Ms. Shivani Kumbhojkar and Ms. Mugdha Narkar; Mr. Prathamesh Kamat with Mr. Omprakash Jha, Ms. Shivani Kumbhojkar and Ms. Mugdha Narkar; Mr. Pesi Modi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kalpana Desai, Mr. Kingshuk Banerjee, Mr. Arnav Mohanty, Mr. Ritvik Kulkarni, Mr. Arnab Ray and Mr. Surya Ravikumar
Securities and Exchange Board of India; Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.
Central Information Commission; Yogesh Babulal Mehta; Dhirendra Kumar; Satish Kumar Jain; Dushyant Vyas; Shri Bhoj Raj Sahu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under the Bombay High Court's Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction challenging orders of the Central Information Commission directing SEBI to obtain information from BSE under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners SEBI and BSE sought quashing of the CIC orders and a declaration that SEBI is not obliged to collect information from third parties like BSE under the RTI Act.
Filing Reason
The CIC interpreted Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to require SEBI, as a public authority, to obtain information from third parties such as BSE and provide it to RTI applicants; the petitioners contended this interpretation was unsustainable.
Previous Decisions
The CIC order dated 25 May 2009 in Writ Petition No.1710 of 2009 was treated as the basic order; other CIC orders were based on it. The High Court granted Rule in all writ petitions and stayed the impugned orders.
Issues
Whether under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, 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.
Whether Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines 'information' in a manner that imposes an obligation on a public authority to collect information from third parties like BSE.
Submissions/Arguments
SEBI, as a public authority and regulator, is obliged only to provide information available with it at the time of the application, subject to the provisions of the RTI Act including Section 8, and is not under an obligation to collect information from third parties such as BSE.
A conjoint reading of Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 6, 8, 11 and 18 of the RTI Act shows that the CIC's direction to SEBI is unsustainable.
The position of law laid down in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, approved in CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, and followed in TRAI v. Akshay Kumar Malhotra, covers the question in favour of the petitioners.
The original applicants who sought information did not appear before the High Court despite service of notice.
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned in extracted text
Judgment Excerpts
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.
The CIC has held in the impugned orders that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, SEBI is under an obligation, not only to provide information available with it as a public authority, but it is also under an obligation to collect such information from third parties like BSE and to provide it to the applicants.
It was submitted that as a public authority and a regulator, SEBI would be under obligation to provide information available with it at the time when an application seeking information is submitted, subject to the provisions 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.
Procedural History
The writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging CIC orders. Rule was granted in all writ petitions and they were tagged together. The impugned orders were stayed. Original applicants were served but chose not to appear. The matters were reserved on 10 August 2026 and pronounced on 18 August 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 2(f), Section 2(h), Section 2(j), Section 6, Section 8, Section 11, Section 18
