Description
SEBI Appellate Authority dismisses RTI appeal by Prakash Kundu seeking information about his wife's demat account and investments by Proten eGov Technologies Limited, as the information is not maintained by SEBI.
Summary
The SEBI Appellate Authority has disposed of Appeal No. 6740 of 2026 filed by Prakash Kundu against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai. The appellant sought information about his wife Purnima Kundu’s demat/trading account and investment details of Proten eGov Technologies Limited. SEBI’s CPIO had responded that the information is not maintained by SEBI in the normal course of regulation of the securities market. The Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s response.
Key Points
- Appellant Prakash Kundu filed an RTI application on December 16, 2025 (received by SEBI on December 23, 2025)
- SEBI CPIO responded on January 07, 2026, stating the information sought is not available with SEBI
- Appellant filed an appeal on February 04, 2026 (received by Appellate Authority on February 09, 2026)
- Two queries were raised: details of wife Purnima Kundu’s demat/trading account, and investment details of Proten eGov Technologies Limited
- SEBI directed the appellant to contact the concerned broker or depository participant for account-related information
Regulatory Changes
No regulatory changes. This is a routine RTI appellate order with no new rules or amendments.
Compliance Requirements
No new compliance requirements for market participants. The order reaffirms the established legal position that SEBI is only obligated to provide information that exists in its records and is maintained in the normal course of regulating the securities market.
Important Dates
- RTI Application filed: December 16, 2025
- RTI Application received by SEBI: December 23, 2025
- CPIO Response: January 07, 2026
- Appeal filed: February 04, 2026
- Appeal received by Appellate Authority: February 09, 2026
Impact Assessment
This order has no market-wide impact. It is an individual RTI matter with no bearing on trading, listing, or broader regulatory compliance. The order reiterates settled law from the Supreme Court (CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011) and CIC precedent that public authorities are not obligated to collate or furnish information not maintained in their records.
Impact Justification
Routine RTI appeal order with no market-wide regulatory changes or compliance requirements; affects only the individual appellant.