The Bombay High Court has held that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is not required under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), to collect information from a private body such as the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) merely because an applicant seeks that information under the RTI framework.
A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat delivered the judgment on August 18, 2026, while deciding a group of nine writ petitions filed by SEBI and BSE.
Background of the Case
The petitions arose from orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The original RTI applicants had approached SEBI seeking information relating to certain matters and required SEBI to obtain that information from BSE.
The CIC had taken the view that SEBI, as a public authority and regulator, was obliged not only to provide information already available with it but also to obtain information from third parties such as BSE and furnish it to the RTI applicants.
SEBI and BSE challenged those directions before the High Court. Their argument was that the RTI Act requires a public authority to provide information held by it, subject to statutory exemptions, but does not require it to collect information from a third party.
Court Examines Scope Of “Information” Under RTI Act
The Bench examined Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines “information”, along with Sections 2(j), 8 and 11 dealing with the right to information, exemptions and third-party information.
The Court noted that the RTI Act has a broad definition of information. However, that definition does not mean that a public authority must create, collect or compile information that it does not already possess.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Bench highlighted that the RTI Act provides access to information that is available and existing. The Supreme Court had clarified that where information is not part of the public authority's records, and is not required to be maintained under law, the authority is not required to collect or collate it for an applicant.
The Bombay High Court observed that this principle directly applied to SEBI's position in the present proceedings.
Supreme Court Precedent Supports SEBI
The Bench also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. The Supreme Court had explained that information relating to a private body can fall within the RTI framework where it can be accessed by a public authority under another law, but the statutory conditions governing that access continue to apply.
The High Court further noted that the Supreme Court had approved the relevant observations in Aditya Bandopadhyay.
The Bench also referred to a 2025 Delhi High Court judgment concerning TRAI, which similarly held that a public authority is not legally required to collect, compile or generate information that is neither part of its records nor within its statutory functions.
Court's Observation
The High Court found that the CIC's interpretation could not be sustained in view of the Supreme Court's clarification of the law.
The Bench observed that the CIC's reasoning was “in the teeth of” the legal position settled by the Supreme Court. It therefore concluded that the directions requiring SEBI to obtain information from BSE and provide it to the applicants could not stand.
Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed all nine writ petitions filed by SEBI and BSE. It quashed and set aside the CIC orders that had directed SEBI to obtain information from third parties such as BSE for RTI applicants.
The Court accordingly made the rule absolute and disposed of any pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Yogesh Babulal Mehta & connected matters
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1664 of 2009 & connected writ petitions
Judges: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Decision Date: August 18, 2026
