Appeal No. 6986 of 2026 filed by Prabhat Singh

Appeal No. 6986 of 2026

Page

1 of

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 6986 of 2026

Prabhat Singh : Appellant

CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated June 24, 2026 (received by SEBI through RTI MIS portal) under

the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated July 15, 2026 responded

to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated July 17, 2026 (Reg. No.

SEBIH/A/E/26/00265). I have perused the application, the response of the respondent and the appeal and

find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.

2. Queries in the application - The appellant, in his application sought the following information:

“I appeared for SEBI Phase 2 Grade A Assistant Manager Examination 2025 in the Legal Stream. I could not qualify

Phase 2. My roll number is 258100xxx and Registration Number is 71707xxxx.

I need following documents:

1. The Response sheet as I submitted of the objective legal paper.

2. The subjective response sheet/answer sheet of the subjective legal paper.

3. The response sheet/answer sheet of the English paper. It may be noted that the above papers must contain the marks

awarded to me for each questions.

Question 2 - What is the likelihood of publication of notification for recruitment of SEBI Assistant General Manager Grade

A in 2026? If yes, then how many vacancies are expected in Legal category?”

Appeal No. 6986 of 2026

Page

2 of

3. Reply of the Respondent – The respondent, in response to query no. 1, in the application, informed that

the within the terms of MoU as per which only IBPS is in possession of copies of question paper and answer

key, which is not shared with SEBI. Hence, the same is not available with SEBI.

With regard to query no. 2, the respondent informed that the query is in the nature of seeking

clarification/opinion. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as “information” as defined u/s 2(f) of the

RTI Act, 2005.

4. Ground of appeal – The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that he was refused access to

information requested .

5. I have perused the application and the response provided thereto. With regard to the copy of his response

sheet/answer key sought by the appellant vide query no. 1, on consideration, I find that respondent has not

adequately addressed the query and that the query no.1 warrants reconsideration.

6. With regard to query no. 2, I find that the appellant’s query is in the nature of seeking

clarification/opinion/confirmation from the respondent. I find that the said query cannot be construed as

seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the respondent did not

have an obligation to provide such clarification or opinion under the RTI Act. In this context, reliance is

placed on matter of Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (order dated March 23, 2021)

wherein Hon’ble Central Information Commission(CIC) observed that “7. The Commission, after hearing the

submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observed that some queries of the appellant are in the nature of

seeking explanation/opinion/advice/confirmation/clarification from the CPIO and he has expected that the CPIO firstly

should analyze the documents and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information;

or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of

the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a

communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to

deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.” Accordingly, I do not find any deficiency in the

response of the respondent.

Appeal No. 6986 of 2026

Page

3 of

7. Considering the above observations, I remit query no. 1 in the application to the respondent for sending

appropriate response to appellant in terms of RTI Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Place: Mumbai RUCHI CHOJER

Date: August 13, 2026 APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA