The Gujarat State Information Commission (GSIC) has directed RTI activist Khushal Verma not to appear in hearings on behalf of other applicants, raising red flags over the growing use of proxies and the potential misuse of the Right to Information Act.
The direction came from State Chief Information Commissioner Dr Subhash Soni while disposing of a complaint filed by Suresh Dabhi under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act.
Dabhi had accused civic authorities of delaying the disclosure of information related to an alleged illegal construction and had authorised Verma to represent him before the commission. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing on January 1, 2026, neither Dabhi nor Verma appeared.
According to media reports, in its order, the commission recalled that Verma had faced curbs in the past as well. It referred to a separate appeal decided on January 29, 2025, in which Verma was instructed not to file more than 25 RTI applications in a single calendar year.
The commission noted that despite this, Verma continued to receive authorisations from multiple applicants to pursue their cases.
The GSIC said this pattern raised concerns that RTI applications and proceedings could be indirectly routed through one individual. “Considering the possibility of other persons using Verma for filing and pursuing RTI matters, and keeping in view his conduct under the RTI Act, he is restrained from appearing in hearings on behalf of other citizens before the public information officer, the first appellate authority or the commission,” the order stated.
At the same time, the commission declined to initiate penalty proceedings against the public information officer (PIO) of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s north zone. The complaint had sought action under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, alleging that information was not supplied within the prescribed time.
Accepting the PIO’s explanation, the commission recorded that notices concerning the alleged illegal construction had been issued and that copies of three such notices were provided to the complainant free of cost on July 24, 2025. As for correspondence with the police and a report to the deputy municipal commissioner, the commission noted that no such records were available at the relevant time. “No question of withholding information arises,” it held.
The order also pointed out that during the hearing of the first appeal, the complainant was again furnished with information in person and had acknowledged receipt by signing the original records on October 11, 2025.
Reacting to the decision, city-based RTI activist Bharatsinh Jhala was quoted in media reports saying that the commission appeared to be walking a fine line. “The order highlights concerns around bulk RTI filings and proxy representation, but it also makes clear that penalty provisions will not be applied when officials are able to show timely and adequate compliance,” he said.
In its concluding observations, the commission reiterated that the growing practice of proxy representation could open the door to indirect filings and undermine the intent of the RTI law, warranting closer scrutiny.
Also Read: Did You Know That You Can File Only 12 RTI Applications A Year in Gujarat? https://www.vibesofindia.com/did-you-know-that-you-can-file-only-12-rti-applications-a-year-in-gujarat/
