Description

SEBI Appellate Authority dismisses RTI appeal seeking trading account records, order logs, and audit trails from broker Bonanza Portfolio Ltd.

Summary

SEBI’s Appellate Authority dismissed Appeal No. 6473 of 2025 filed by Geeta Rani seeking trading account records under the RTI Act. The appellant requested certified documentary proof of order placement, order logs with timestamps, dealer IDs, voice recordings, and complete audit trails for trades executed in her account with Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. SEBI stated the requested information is not maintained by them in normal course of regulation.

Key Points

  • Appellant sought trading records for account DSW61072 and demat account 1203350001797090 with Bonanza Portfolio Ltd
  • SEBI responded that requested information is not available as it’s not maintained by SEBI in normal regulatory course
  • Appeal filed on grounds of refused access to information
  • SEBI provided ATR of related complaint (SEBIE/UC25/HARI/003412/1) accessible through SCORES 2.0 portal
  • Supreme Court precedent cited: RTI Act provides access only to existing information in public authority records

Regulatory Changes

No regulatory changes introduced. This is an appellate decision on RTI information access.

Compliance Requirements

No new compliance requirements. Reaffirms that SEBI can only provide information available in its records under RTI Act.

Important Dates

  • April 29, 2025: Original RTI application filed
  • May 7, 2025: SEBI’s initial response
  • July 3, 2025: Appeal filed (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/25/00170)
  • July 29, 2025: Appellate Authority order

Impact Assessment

Minimal market impact. This individual case clarifies SEBI’s position on RTI requests for broker-maintained trading records. Establishes precedent that detailed trading records like order logs, timestamps, and voice recordings must be sought directly from brokers rather than SEBI, as such granular data is not maintained by the regulator in normal course.

Impact Justification

Individual RTI appeal case with limited market-wide impact, primarily procedural in nature