The CIC had interpreted the definition of “data” below the RTI Act to carry that SEBI was sure not solely to supply information already accessible in its information but additionally to actively gather data from non-public third events like BSE to fulfill citizen queries.
The core difficulty earlier than the Excessive Courtroom, subsequently, was whether or not the facility of a regulator (like SEBI) to request information may very well be cited to compel it to gather third-party data for RTI candidates.
SEBI had argued that forcing a regulator to behave as an information-gathering agent for RTI candidates exceeds the statutory mandate of the RTI Act.
The Excessive Courtroom discovered pressure on this submission. It clarified {that a} public authority is simply required to furnish the knowledge it truly holds when the RTI request is submitted.
The Excessive Courtroom additionally relied on Supreme Courtroom rulings, which clarified that the RTI Act doesn’t forged an obligation upon public authorities to gather or collate data not already accessible with it.
The Excessive Courtroom concluded that CIC had overstepped on this case.
“We discover that the stated reasoning of the CIC is within the tooth of the place of regulation clarified by the Supreme Courtroom and subsequently, it can’t be sustained and the impugned orders should be quashed and put aside.”
Consequently, the Courtroom put aside the CIC orders below problem.
