CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01565
Dated, the 17th July, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Kul Bhushan Jain
Respondents : Securities and Exchange Board of India
This matter was heard on 02.04.2009 in the presence of both
parties. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 17.03.2008 contained
requests for the following information:-
“complete details of AUCTION TRADING with regard to the
following scrips on the B.S.E., relating to the Settlements, the
details of are being given hereinunder:-
S.No. Scrip Name Date Settlement No.
1. DIAMOND CABLES 03.10.2007 BR-0708127
2. -do- 05.10.2007 BR-0708129
3. -do- 18.10.2007 BR-0708138
4. MOTI LAL OSWAL 20.11.2007 BR-0708161
This above stated information should include the following
particulars also:
5. Name of the Seller
6. Name of the Buyer
7. Rate of each trade separately
8. Quantity of each trade separately” [sic]
2. This information was declined to be disclosed through a
communication dated 09.04.2008 by CPIO citing the exemption under
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Appellate Authority, in his decision
dated 05.06.2008, held as under:-
“6. I have carefully examined the appeal memorandums, the
appellant’s applications and replies of the CPIO and find that the
matter can be decided on merit with the materials on record.
Further, I find that the issues involved in both the appeals filed by the
appellant are same and hence, I decided to issue a common order in
the interest of justice.
AT-17072009-06.doc
Page 1 of 4
7. The appellant has contended that BSE and NSE fall under the
definition of public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Nevertheless, the appellant has not preferred any RTI application to
the said Stock Exchanges. In this context, I observe that the issue as
to whether the Stock Exchanges would come under the definition of
public authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is pending
consideration of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
8. The information pertaining to the auction trading in some of
the scrips as also the details of the buyers, sellers, quantities and rate
sought by the appellant are not available with SEBI. The Stock
Exchanges are normally maintaining such data. Considering BSE and
NSE as private bodies for the time being, the matter was taken up
with them as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. They have
objected the disclosure as stated in paragraphs no.4 above. The CPIO
has accepted the plea of BSE and NSE and declined the information to
the appellant. Therefore, the issue to be decided in this case is
whether the trade details of the brokers and their clients in some of
the scrips can be disclosed or not under the provisions of RTI Act.
9. The appellant has sought the trade details of third parties
including settlement of trade in auction process. It is matter of fact
that BSE and NSE are duty bound to maintain such details in
confidence as per the Circular SMDRP/Policy/CIR-39/2001 dated July
18, 2001 and the relevant portion of said circular is extracted
hereunder:
The Exchanges are advised to direct members to include a new
clause no.7 as given below in the format of the Member-Client
Agreement prescribed by our earlier circular dated April 11,
1997 as given below:-
‘The member hereby undertakes to maintain, the details of the
client as mentioned in the client registration form or any other
information pertaining to the client, in confidence and that he
shall not disclose the same to any person / entity except as
required under the law, with prior intimation to SEBI.’The Exchanges are also advised that the following clause be
made a part of the bye-laws, rules, regulations of the
Exchange:-
‘The Stock Exchange shall maintain the details of the clients of
the members in confidence and that it shall not disclose to any
person / entity such details of the client as mentioned in the
client registration form or any other information pertaining to
AT-17072009-06.doc
Page 2 of 4
the client except as required under the law or by any
authority.’
10. The above circular was issued by SEBI with a view to protect the
investors and a direction to override the above circular to disclose
confidential trade details would affect the integrity of SEBI especially
when the RTI Act exempted the disclosure of such information under
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The trade details kept by the Stock
Exchanges in confidence in their fiduciary relationship with their
brokers and clients cannot be disclosed unless larger public interest
warrants its disclosure. This position is clearly enumerated under
Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. Further, the details of trades of brokers
and clients are their personal information which is also exempted
under 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. SEBI being a regulator of securities market
can not insist the intermediaries and stock exchanges to part with all
the documents / information especially when the disclosure of such
information is exempted under Section 8(1)(d), Section 8(1)(e) and
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
11. Apart from the above, I find that there is no larger public
interest that warrants the disclosure of information sought by the
appellant. The appellant has not explained how the disclosure would
benefit public at large. In short, the information about the trading
details of third parties is not liable to be disclosed unless that third
party concurs in the disclosure or otherwise, larger public interest
warrants the disclosure. In the instant matter, both the ingredients
such as concurrence from main third parties and public interest are
absent. In these circumstances, I do not find any necessity to allow
information to the appellant. The Hon’ble CIC has also taken similar
stand in its decision as quoted hereunder:
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00609 Dated, the 9th February, 2007, Shri
Ravinder Kumar Shri Ravinder Yadav, Deputy Commissioner of Police &
CPIO,
“The conclusions of the AA and the CPIO about the nature of
information at item (i) at para 3 above, are objective as well as
accurate. Information furnished to a public authority by a third
party and held by that authority, is not liable to be disclosed
unless that third party concurs in the disclosure, or if the public
authority chooses to disclose it in public interest regardless of
the third party’s objection. The respondents informed the
Commission during hearing today (i.e. 8.2.2007) that the third
party had objected to the disclosure of the information, and
there was no public interest that would commend disclosing the
information despite third party’s objection. The appellant
could not claim public interest in his being made privy to an
AT-17072009-06.doc
Page 3 of 4
information which was all about a dispute between two
altogether different persons”.
12. Taking into account all facts and circumstances in this case, I
don’t find any reason to interfere in the matter. Appeal is accordingly
dismissed.”
3. Appellant in his submission has urged that the decision of the
respondents went against the spirit of the RTI Act. He disputed the
respondents’ averment that the cases cited by them applied in the
present matter. He has also questioned the Appellate Authority citing
the circular dated 18th July, 2001 in support of not disclosing the
information to the appellant. He believes that the circular was
superseded by the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is his contention
that denial of this variety of information was “definitely going to
encourage corruption and highhandedness in the working of NSE and
BSE who are very much acting as Government Instrumentalities only
under the supervision of yet another Government Instrumentality /
Statutory Body i.e. SEBI.” It is his case that by declining to disclose the
requested information, respondents had denied to him justice to which
he was entitled.
4. The point to be decided in this appeal is whether the information
requested by the appellant would qualify to be personal information of
a third-party and whether that information was also one of commercial
confidence of that third-party.
5. From the order of the Appellate Authority, it is clear that the
requested information definitely belongs to individuals, who were
third-parties in this matter. There is no reason why this information be
provided to the appellant despite it coming within the scope of Sections
8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Nothing what the appellant had
stated would show that there was any overriding public interest that
would commend disclosure of the requested information.
6. I, therefore, hold that the Appellate Authority had rightly
declined to disclose the requested information to the appellant.
7. Appeal fails. Closed.
8. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-17072009-06.doc
Page 4 of 4