New Delhi: The cases where SEBI chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch recused herself due to potential conflict of interest is not “readily” available and collating them would “disproportionately divert” its resources, the securities market regulator said in an RTI response on Friday.
What Did SEBI Say In RTI Response?
In the response furnished to transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd), the regulator also refused to provide copies of Buch’s declarations to the government and SEBI Board on the financial assets and equities held by her and her family members on the grounds of these being ” personal information” and that their disclosure may “endanger” personal safety. (Also Read: Congress’ Fresh Salvo At Buch)
It also denied to disclose the dates on which the disclosures were made. The SEBI Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) used the grounds of “personal information” and “safety” to deny copy of those declarations.
“Since the information sought do not pertain to you and the same relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and mat cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual and may also endanger the life or physical safety of the person(s). The same is, therefore exempt in terms of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005,” the RTI response said.
“Further the information on cases where Madhabi Puri Buch recused herself due to potential conflicts of interest during her tenure is not readily available and collating the same will lead to disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority in terms of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act,” it said.
Section 8(1)(g) allows a public authority to withhold information the disclosure of which would endanger the life and physical safety of any person and section 8(1)(j) allows withholding information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which Has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
A CPIO may still disclose information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
A press release from SEBI on August 11 had claimed that the chairperson has recused herself in matters involving potential conflict of interest.
“It is noted that relevant disclosures required in terms of holdings of securities and their transfers have been made by the Chairperson from time to time,” it had said.
The US-based short seller Hindenburg Research alleged that it suspects SEBI’s unwillingness to act against the Adani group may be because Buch had stakes in offshore funds linked to the conglomerate.
The short seller had alleged that Buch and her husband Dhaval had invested in one of the funds which was allegedly being used by Vinod Adani. It also flagged Dhaval’s association with private equity major Blackstone, a promoter of multiple real estate investment trusts (REITs) and Sebi’s continued pitch for the new investment avenue.
“The allegations made by Hindenburg Research, against the Adani Group, have been duly investigated by Sebi,” the capital markets regulator had said in the statement.
The Supreme Court had itself noted in an order in January that 24 out of 26 investigations against Adani had been completed, it said, adding that one more was completed in March and the last is nearing completion now.
