Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Ruling Declaring NSE A Public Authority Under RTI Act

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Delhi High Court's July 1 judgment declaring the National Stock Exchange (NSE) a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act.

It thus revived the interim stay on the Central Information Commission's June 7, 2007 order declaring the NSE a public authority, directing that it shall continue until further orders.

A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued a notice on NSE's appeal. It extended the interim protection that had operated during the pendency of the proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

Appearing for the NSE, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the exchange is a private company with around 40% domestic shareholding and 27% foreign shareholding. He argued that it cannot be treated as a "public authority" merely because it is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

Referring to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, Mehta submitted that the NSE was neither established nor constituted by the Government or under any law made by Parliament.

"I am a company... kindly see the definition of public authority," he submitted. He added that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.

During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath observed, "These are days of transparency." When Mehta responded that the NSE already placed substantial information on its website, the bench remarked, "Still, it is not going to stand for very long anyhow."

The Court then issued notice on the appeal. It stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court's July 1 judgment and directed that the interim stay on the operation of the CIC's June 7, 2007 order shall continue until further orders.

Background

The dispute dates back to 2007, when the Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the National Stock Exchange was a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.

The CIC reasoned that the exchange performs important public functions in the securities market and is subject to deep and pervasive governmental control.

The NSE challenged the CIC's order before the Delhi High Court. It argued that, although it was incorporated as a private company on November 27, 1992 and was later recognised by SEBI as a stock exchange, it was neither established nor constituted by the Government. It therefore contended that it did not fall within the definition of a "public authority" under the RTI Act.

On April 15, 2010, a single judge rejected the contention and upheld the CIC's order. The NSE appealed before a division bench.

Dismissing the appeal on July 1, 2026, the Division Bench endorsed the Single Judge's finding that the NSE is an "authority" within the meaning of the first part of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The bench therefore found it unnecessary to examine whether the exchange also qualified as an institution of self-government.

"We entirely agree, and wholeheartedly endorse the finding, of the learned Single Judge, that the NSEI is an 'authority' within the meaning of the first part of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to examine whether the NSEI would also qualify as an 'institution of self-government'," the court ruled.

The DB also held that a stock exchange cannot legally function without governmental recognition. It ruled that the recognition order issued by SEBI is deemed to be an order of the Central Government because the regulator exercises delegated powers under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act.

The NSE had also argued that the earlier decision in Delhi Stock Exchange v. K.C. Sharma was distinguishable because it arose from a service dispute.

The bench rejected the submission. It held that the finding on deep and pervasive governmental control did not depend on the nature of the dispute and, since the same statutory framework governs the NSE, applied equally in the present case. It consequently dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Single Judge's judgment.