Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing

In an order of the Full Bench of the Punjab State Information Commission, which deliberated and decided the following issues:

1. Whether a person not registered as an Advocate can appear on behalf of an information-seeker before the Commission.
2. Whether a person not registered as an Advocate and not holding a pleader’s license can appear on behalf of an information-seeker in the Commission and plead on his behalf in the proceedings under Sections 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Whether such a non-Advocate can appear after charging certain consideration from the concerned information seeker.
4. Whether there should be a specific format of Vakalatnama/authorization which must be submitted by non-Advocate representing an information-seeker before the Commission.
5. Whether a formal Order needs to be passed by the Commission in each case permitting such non-Advocate to represent an information-seeker, before such individual can be allowed to appear or plead on behalf of the information seeker.

1. Any person (even non advocate) can appear on behalf of information seeker
2. Appearance has to be authorised by the Commission
3. Person appearing can charge consideration for his/her appearance
4. PIO can be represented by Advocate
5. Any party can be represented by an Advocate

The decision is available here: Download Decision

1. **Name the representative in writing** — a simple signed authorisation from the appellant; the Full Bench treats a formal Vakalatnama as unnecessary, but the authorisation should be on record.
2. **Ask the Commission's leave before the hearing starts** — appearance is permitted "provided the Commission authorises it", so move the application first, not after objection.
3. **PIO side has the same latitude** — a departmental officer or an Advocate may represent the PIO; expect the hearing to proceed on records either way.
4. **Fees charged by a non-Advocate are not illegal** under this ruling — agree them beforehand, in writing.

The ruling is a State Commission's Full Bench decision — persuasive, not binding, elsewhere; the CIC has its own practice on representatives. File the authorisation regardless; it removes the objection everywhere.

No — RTI proceedings are not court litigation; the record and the law carry the appeal. A representative helps when you cannot attend or the case is heavy with documents.

Name of appellant, name of representative, appeal/complaint number, and the act being authorised — appearance and arguments on the appellant's behalf — signed by both.

• Format for giving information to the applicants.
• Ministers Under RTI.
• Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs.
• Commission Decisions.
• RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant.
• The RTI Playbook book

Last reviewed on: 27 August 2026. Junk description rebuilt and typos fixed; the practical authorisation sequence and FAQ added.

• Power of Review by CIC