)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) in an appeal seeking details about an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) into the sale of Reliance Petroleum shares in 2007.
In orders on two different appeals, its full bench decided (the order was issued on November 28) that Sebi need not disclose the details sought by a citizen, an Arun Agrawal, under the Right to Information Act (RTI).
It decided a sufficient case had not been made that such a disclosure would serve the “public interest”. And, that disclosure of such information would defeat the purposes for which these had been offered protection in the first place.
| NOT ENTIRELY PRIVATE |
|
Agrawal says he will appeal against these verdicts. His petition had initially been rejected by Sebi, towards the end of 2011. Agrawal appealed and, a year after, the then central information commissioner, Satyanand Mishra, had said the information should be given, since, “If as a regulator, Sebi took cognizance of allegations of any breach of law, rules or regulations by one or more entities for unlawful private gain, the information generated in the process of its investigation needs to be disclosed in the public domain. Such disclosure would keep the general public informed and educated about the risks they may confront in making investments in the market. It would also prevent many entities from adopting shortcuts to make profit through unlawful means. The argument that at the end of the quasi-judicial proceedings the charged entities may be found innocent cannot be an argument against disclosing the information.”
RIL got a stay from the high court here, which said the arguments on the mater should be heard afresh by the appellate body. The latest verdict, overturning the earlier decision, is the outcome.
The first RIL appeal was on a petition seeking several details, including the inspection report in respect of the entities involved with RIL in the (alleged ) short sale of shares of Reliance Petroleum in November 2007, various applications of consent order/terms offered by RIL and the entities involved or charged under the Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices (PFUTP) Regulations, file notings and the entire file of this case.
In the second appeal, the appellant sought details of “the name and addresses of the entities (name of individuals, partners, directors and major shareholders, if companies) involved in the short sale of shares of Reliance Petroleum in November 2007 and name of the brokers through whom the short sales deal was routed.” Of these, the names of 12 entities were revealed in a January 2013 order. Other details of these 12 and details of the brokers are still not public.
The commission's latest order said: "The process of probe against RIL initiated by Sebi is still continuing. So, the disclosure of the requested information at this stage would impede the said process and defeat the purpose of the protection granted to such information. No concrete and tangible case of public interest has been made out by the appellant...we also do not find any legal flaw in the Sebi stand that the requested information should not be disclosed at this stage.” The commission also saw merit in the arguments put by Amit Sibal, counsel for RIL, who said the allegation that there was a conspiracy between RIL and the 12 entities was baseless. He had argued that disclosure of the desired information would affect the efficient operation of Sebi and the confidentiality of sensitive information would not be preserved. An email to the RIL spokesperson did not elicit any response.
And, that “the right to negotiation and settle in confidence is fundamental…If the information is disclosed, it will strike down the policy of Sebi to negotiate.”
Agrawal said: “It is surprising that the same commission which had earlier found that the information should be divulged in the public interest now finds that the information is not in the public interest. There should be some objective parameters of public interest under the RTI Act. Public interest is suffering on account of not appointing a Chief Information Commissioner.”
The latter post has been vacant for three and a half months. On earlier occasions, the seniormost commissioner was appointed CIC and the post was never left vacant.
While RIL had got a stay on the first CIC order in the Delhi HC, Sebi had challenged the order in the Bombay HC. On RIL’s request, the latter had agreed to postpone the hearing till the Delhi HC decision. However, in an order detailing entities whose consent orders were rejected in January 2013, Sebi on its own put out the names of 12 entities that assisted RIL in the 2007 transaction. On January 31, 2013, the Delhi HC set aside the CIC order on the grounds that the CIC did not give RIL an opportunity to present its case before passing the impugned order. The court remanded the case back to the commission, directing it to issue notices to RIL.
