In a significant judgment refining the boundaries of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the Bombay High Court ruled that public authorities are under no legal obligation to gather or collect information from third parties or private entities merely to satisfy a citizen's RTI query.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, delivered the verdict while quashing orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Background and Key Facts
The case—Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) v. Yogesh Mehta & aOrs.—originated from RTI applications filed by an applicant seeking specific data regarding the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) from market regulator SEBI.
Because the regulatory framework equips SEBI with statutory powers to inspect, call for documents, and demand data from market entities under its supervisory domain, the CIC ruled that SEBI was obliged to exercise these powers. The Commission directed SEBI to actively collect the requested information from the BSE and transmit it to the RTI applicant.
Both SEBI and the BSE challenged the directives before the High Court, contending that acting as an involuntary information-gathering agency for public applicants exceeds the statutory intent and mandate of the RTI Act.
Core Rulings and Judicial Reasoning
Quashing the CIC directives, the High Court established key principles regarding public authorities and third-party data under the RTI Act:
- Regulatory Powers Cannot Be Co-Opted for RTI Applications:
The court emphasized that a regulatory body’s statutory authority to request data from private entities for supervisory or enforcement purposes cannot be automatically invoked by citizens under the RTI Act. The mere existence of regulatory jurisdiction over an entity does not transform the regulator into a proxy data collection agency. - Public Authorities Disclose Existing Records Only:
Under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, a public authority is only mandated to provide information that is already held by or under its direct control atthe time the application is submitted. The law does not cast a duty on public authorities to create, collate, or fetch non-existent or unheld records from external parties to satisfy queries. - In Line with Supreme Court Precedents:
The High Court noted that the CIC's expansive interpretation directly contradicted established rulings of the Supreme Court of India, which explicitly restrict the scope of RTI to records physically or legally existing within the public authority's domain
Impact and Significance
This ruling reinforces a functional separation between a regulator's supervisory duties and its public disclosure obligations under the RTI Act:
- Relief for Regulatory Bodies: Prevents administrative overload on statutory authorities, ensuring they are not burdened with retrieving external data outside their standard operational scope.
- Clarification for Third Parties: Protects private and semi-private entities regulated by public bodies from indirect disclosure demands routed through regulators, preserving the statutory framework governing third-party disclosures.
Discription: The Bombay High Court ruled in SEBI v. Yogesh Mehta that public authorities cannot be forced to collect information from third parties or private bodies under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
Quashing Central Information Commission (CIC) orders that directed market regulator SEBI to obtain data from the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) for an applicant, a Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat held that public authorities are only required to provide information already held by or under their direct control.
The court clarified that a regulator’s statutory power to demand data from third parties for regulatory purposes cannot be co-opted to turn it into an information-gathering agent for RTI applicants. This ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedents, protecting public authorities from administrative overload while defining clear boundaries for public disclosure request