Disclosure and its Limits under RTI Act
Introduction:In the landmark decision pronounced on 10 July 2025 in Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Central Public Information Officer, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered the delicate balance between transparency mandated by the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the competing rights of privacy, fiduciary obligations, and third-party interests. The case involved a series of writ petitions challenging and defending the Central Information Commission’s order dated 27 December 2022, which partly allowed disclosure of regulatory information held by the Securities and Exchange Board of India. The judgment revisited important questions on the procedural safeguards under Section 11 of the RTI Act and the scope of qualified exemptions under Section 8, while examining leading precedents from the Supreme Court.
Factual Background:The matter arose from an RTI application filed on 18 June 2021 by Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, a noted transparency activist. Mr. Agrawal sought extensive information from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on nine specific queries. These included details of SEBI’s role and policy in appointing Public Interest Directors (PIDs) to the boards of major stock exchanges such as the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), National Stock Exchange (NSE), and Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX), as well as annual inspection reports of these exchanges and related documents. The underlying public interest, as claimed by Mr. Agrawal, was to ensure transparency in the functioning of financial regulators and the stock market, affecting large numbers of investors.
Procedural Background:Following SEBI’s partial denial of the requested information, the matter proceeded before the Central Information Commission. In its order dated 27 December 2022, the CIC partly allowed the application by directing SEBI to provide certain information like lists of selected and rejected candidates for PID appointments and concluding comments from annual inspection reports, but upheld SEBI’s denial of full inspection reports and internal correspondence, citing exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Aggrieved by the CIC’s directions, SEBI filed Writ Petition Nos. 10909 and 10910 of 2023, arguing that disclosure of the information would compromise its fiduciary obligations and harm sensitive economic interests. On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal filed Writ Petition Nos. 10887 and 10888 of 2023, challenging the CIC’s refusal to order broader disclosure. Recognizing the intertwined nature of these petitions, the High Court heard them together, reserving judgment on 25 June 2025 and delivering its decision on 10 July 2025.
Core Dispute:The central question before the High Court was whether the disclosure of SEBI’s internal documents, file notings, correspondence, and detailed inspection reports regarding stock exchanges should be permitted under the RTI Act, despite claims of fiduciary confidentiality, potential harm to competitive positions, and the need to protect third-party privacy. The Court had to examine whether the CIC correctly applied exemptions under Section 8(1)(d), (e), and (j) and whether it failed to comply with the mandatory third-party consultation procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act before ordering disclosure.
Discussion on Judgments:The petitioners and respondents extensively cited landmark judgments to support their respective positions. Mr. Agrawal’s counsel relied heavily on Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525, where the Supreme Court directed the RBI to disclose similar inspection reports and rejected claims of fiduciary capacity, holding that transparency outweighed confidentiality in regulatory matters affecting public interest. The judgment was further affirmed by a larger Bench in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, which recognized the RTI Act as an instrument to promote accountability and transparency of public authorities.
SEBI, supported by stock exchanges, distinguished these precedents by referring to the Supreme Court’s order in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1337, where the Court expressed prima facie reservations about the sweeping disclosure mandated in Jayantilal N. Mistry, emphasizing the need to balance transparency with privacy rights and economic security. SEBI argued that disclosure of inspection reports and internal documents would risk misuse of sensitive financial data and destabilize market regulation.
Additionally, SEBI and the stock exchanges cited the Constitution Bench’s observations in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, which clarified that while the RTI Act promotes transparency, it also includes qualified exemptions to protect sensitive information, and mandates procedural safeguards such as third-party consultation under Section 11 before disclosing information relating to third parties.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of the RTI Act’s scheme, focusing on the balance between transparency and protection of privacy and fiduciary interests. The Court accepted that the information sought under Queries Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 involved data provided by third parties such as stock exchanges and individuals applying as PIDs, which was held by SEBI in a fiduciary capacity or constituted personal information.
For Query No. 2, the Court upheld the CIC’s finding that file notings and correspondence related to the framing of policy on PIDs was exempt under Section 8(1)(e) because it was information held in fiduciary capacity. Regarding Query No. 3, which sought lists of selected and rejected PID candidates and related documents, the Court emphasized that even though the names of selected candidates are in the public domain, rejected candidates are entitled to privacy. Thus, under Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 11, SEBI was required to consult these third parties before deciding on disclosure.
The judges further observed that inspection reports requested under Queries Nos. 4 and 5 contained sensitive economic data about stock exchanges, and therefore, disclosure should only occur after following Section 11 to allow the exchanges to object if necessary. The Court also noted that broad, vague queries like those under Queries Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9 were not sufficiently specific, making compliance impractical.
By remanding certain queries for fresh consideration, the Court reconciled the public’s right to information with the statutory duty to protect third-party interests, as mandated by the Constitution Bench in Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
Final Decision:The Bombay High Court partly upheld the CIC’s order and partly set it aside. It dismissed Mr. Agrawal’s petitions seeking broader disclosure and allowed SEBI’s petitions in part. The Court directed that information sought under Queries Nos. 3, 4, and 5 be reconsidered by the Central Public Information Officer after strictly following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. The CIC’s order on Queries Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 was left undisturbed. No order as to costs was made.
Law Settled in This Case:This decision reinforces that under the RTI Act, the right to information is balanced by qualified exemptions protecting privacy, commercial confidence, and fiduciary obligations. Importantly, when disclosure involves third-party information, compliance with Section 11 is mandatory, and authorities must invite objections from affected parties before deciding. The judgment also clarifies that even in matters involving regulatory bodies, courts must carefully assess the competing claims of transparency and confidentiality rather than apply precedents mechanically.
Case Title: Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Central Public Information Officer
Date of Order: 10 July 2025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10887 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:28136-DB
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sonak and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Jain
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
