Description
RTI appeal dismissed as queries seeking clarification on bonus share eligibility after NCLT resolution and share dilution do not constitute 'information' under RTI Act.
Summary
The SEBI Appellate Authority dismissed Appeal No. 6594 of 2025 filed by Sambit Chakraborty under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant sought clarification on eligibility for bonus shares after his shareholding was diluted from 750 shares to 7 shares following an NCLT resolution process (1:100 dilution). The Authority upheld that queries seeking clarification, opinion, or advice do not constitute ‘information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and the CPIO has no obligation to provide such opinions.
Key Points
- RTI application filed on September 17, 2025; CPIO response dated October 10, 2025; Appeal filed October 14, 2025
- Appellant purchased 750 shares of an FMCG company in July 2019 that underwent NCLT resolution
- Shares diluted 1:100, reducing holding to 7 shares after acquisition by another FMCG company
- New company announced 2:1 bonus shares; appellant sought eligibility clarification
- Appeal rejected as queries are opinion/clarification-based, not ‘information’ under RTI Act Section 2(f)
- CPIO advised appellant to contact the company directly at registered office
Regulatory Changes
No regulatory changes. This is an administrative order clarifying the scope of RTI Act provisions.
Compliance Requirements
No compliance requirements imposed. The order clarifies that CPIOs are not obligated to provide opinions, clarifications, advice, or create/interpret information under the RTI Act. Such queries should be directed to relevant companies or authorities directly.
Important Dates
- September 17, 2025: RTI application filed
- October 10, 2025: CPIO response issued
- October 14, 2025: Appeal filed (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/25/00277)
- November 4, 2025: Appellate Authority order issued
Impact Assessment
This order has minimal market impact. It serves as an administrative clarification on the limitations of RTI Act applications when seeking opinions or clarifications rather than factual information. The ruling reinforces established RTI jurisprudence that CPIOs cannot create, interpret, or analyze information to provide customized advice. Referenced precedent: Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (March 23, 2021, Central Information Commission).
Impact Justification
Administrative RTI appeal order with no regulatory changes or market impact; clarifies RTI scope regarding opinion-based queries