Role Of RBI Cannot Be Equated With Stock Exchanges & SEBI
Role Of RBI Cannot Be Equated With Stock Exchanges & SEBI
The writ petitions had been instituted by Agarwal to challenge the said order to the extent that it did not provide the entire information sought in the application made to the CPIO, SEBI.
The Bombay High Court revealed that the role of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in regulating their affairs cannot be equated with stock exchanges and the role of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Writ petitions challenging the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) were being heard by the court. A division bench of Justice Jitendra Jain and Justice M S Sonak reportedly observed, “Furthermore, the banks and the role of the RBI in regulating their affairs cannot be equated with stock exchanges and the role of SEBI in regulating the stock exchanges. In any event, the annual general reports, based upon information furnished by the various stock exchanges, can be said to constitute information related to third parties. Therefore, without following the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act, there was no question of directing even the limited disclosures that have been made.”
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate J J Bhatt and Advocate Ashish Venugopal whereas the respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Sudip Sen, Pesi Modi, and Advocate Zerick Dastur. The writ petition was instituted by the SEBI to challenge the CIC’s order to the extent it directed the CPIO (Chief Public Information Officer), SEBI to provide a revised reply to Mr Agarwal on points 1, 3, 4 and 5 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The writ petitions had been instituted by Agarwal to challenge the said order to the extent that it did not provide the entire information sought in the application made to the CPIO, SEBI. The said application seeking some information from the CPIO, SEBI under the RTI Act had been partly allowed by the CIC.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court reportedly noted: “Query numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9 seek general information like inspection of all records, documents, files etc. on the subject matters of query numbers 1 to 5, weblinks, if any, providing information as sought under query numbers 1 to 5 and even file notings on movement of the RTI Petition.” Agreeing with the counsel that providing such vague information may not be possible, the court added that while there may be no exemption as such provided in such situations, the applicant is expected to seek information with an adequate degree of precision and clarity so that the request for information can be processed within the timelines set out under the RTI Act.
The court reportedly remarked, “Mr Venugopal, however, relied on Jayantilal N. Mistri (supra) to submit that in this case, the RBI, which had raised a substantially similar defence, was ultimately directed to disclose its annual general reports concerning the banks. … Mr Venugopal advanced no serious contentions concerning query numbers 6 to 9.” Therefore, the court refused to interfere with the CIC’s order in so far as query numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were concerned, but set aside the same regarding query numbers 3, 4 and 5. Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of by the Hight Court which remanded the case to the CPIO for fresh consideration.
