The Bombay High Court has held that a public authority is required to furnish information that is held by or under its control, but the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not impose an obligation on it to collect or obtain information from a private body merely to satisfy an RTI applicant.
A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat allowed a batch of nine writ petitions filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), challenging orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The judgment was pronounced on August 18, 2026.
The common issue before the Court was whether, under the RTI Act, a public authority such as SEBI could be directed to obtain information from a private body such as BSE and furnish it to an RTI applicant. The CIC had held that SEBI was obliged not only to provide information already available with it but also to collect information from BSE and provide it to the applicants.
The Court examined Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 6, 8 and 11 of the RTI Act. It noted that Section 2(f) defines ‘information’ broadly, including information relating to a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law. However, the Court held that this provision does not mean that a public authority must proactively collect information from third parties whenever an RTI application seeks it.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay,(2011) 8 SCC 497, the Bench reiterated that the RTI Act provides access to information that is available and existing. Where the information sought is not part of the public authority’s records and is not required to be maintained by it under law, the authority is not required to collect or collate such information and then furnish it to the applicant.
The Court further relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, which clarified the scope of information relating to a private body under Section 2(f). The Supreme Court had held that such information can fall within the RTI regime where it is accessible by the public authority under another law, but statutory preconditions or restrictions governing the public authority’s access to that information continue to apply.
The Bombay High Court particularly emphasised that the phrase ‘held by or under the control of any public authority’ limits the right to information. While a public authority may have the power under its governing statute to access information from a private body, that power does not by itself create an RTI obligation to obtain that information for an applicant.
The Bench also noted the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court between restrictions on a citizen’s access to information and restrictions on the public authority’s own power to access information. Section 22 of the RTI Act may override restrictions on a citizen’s access to information that is otherwise accessible to the public authority, but it does not empower the public authority to disregard statutory restrictions governing its own access to information held by a private body.
The Court observed that the CIC’s reasoning that information in the hands of a private body which is accessible to a public authority automatically becomes accessible to an RTI applicant was contrary to the legal position clarified by the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the Bench held that the CIC’s impugned orders could not be sustained. It quashed and set aside all the orders challenged in the batch of petitions and allowed all nine writ petitions filed by SEBI and BSE. The Rule was made absolute, with pending applications, if any, also disposed of.
