Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—important-decisions:cic-case-laws:advocates-rti [2026/08/26 23:09] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing ======
 +
 +{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-cic-case-laws-advocates-rti.png?direct&1200 |important-decisions / cic-case-laws / advocates-rti — RTI Wiki}}
 +
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Quick Reply:** A Punjab SIC **Full Bench** settled five questions on who may argue your RTI hearing: **any person — including a non-Advocate — may appear** for an information-seeker, **if the Commission authorises it**; the representative **may charge** for the appearance; a formal Vakalatnama is not compulsory. The decision PDF is attached below.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(important decisions cic case laws advocates rti rti right to information india)
 +metatag-description=(Punjab SIC Full Bench: a non-Advocate may represent an information-seeker before a Commission with its authorisation — and may charge. What that means for you.)}}
 +
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**In one line.** Any person, including a person who is not an Advocate, may appear on behalf of an applicant or a Public Information Officer before an Information Commission, provided the Commission has authorised the appearance. The representative may charge a consideration.
 +
 +**What that means in practice.**
 +  * An applicant is not required to engage an Advocate to appear before the Commission.
 +  * A non-Advocate representative must obtain the Commission's authorisation; a formal Vakalatnama is not required, but a written authorisation is ordinarily expected.
 +  * A Public Information Officer may also be represented by an Advocate or a departmental officer.
 +  * The decision is of the Punjab State Information Commission, Full Bench. It has persuasive value before the Central Information Commission and other State Commissions.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +{{ :important-decisions:cic-case-laws:rti-advocate.png?200 |Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing — RTI Wiki}}
 +
 +In an order of the Full Bench of the Punjab State Information Commission, which deliberated and decided the following issues:
 +
 +
 +  - Whether a person **not registered as an Advocate** can appear on behalf of an information-seeker before the Commission.
 +  - 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.
 +  - Whether such a non-Advocate can appear **after charging** certain consideration from the concerned information seeker.
 +  - Whether there should be a **specific format of Vakalatnama/authorization**  which must be submitted by non-Advocate representing an information-seeker before the Commission.
 +  - 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.
 +===== Decision of the Commission =====
 +
 +
 +  - **Any person (even non advocate) can appear** on behalf of information seeker
 +  - Appearance has to be **authorised by the Commission**
 +  - Person appearing **can charge** consideration for his/her appearance
 +  - **PIO can be represented by Advocate**
 +  - **Any party can be represented by an Advocate**
 +
 +
 +
 +The decision is available here: {{:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:appearance_of_advocates_in_info_commissions_punjab_sic.pdf|Download Decision}}
 +
 +
 +
 +===== Getting your representative allowed — the practical sequence =====
 +
 +  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.
 +
 +===== FAQs =====
 +==== Does this apply outside Punjab? ====
 +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.
 +==== Is a lawyer ever required? ====
 +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.
 +==== What should the authorisation say? ====
 +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.
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +
 +  * [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:format-rti-cpio|Format for giving information to the applicants]].
 +  * [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:ministers-under-rti|Ministers Under RTI]].
 +  * [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs|Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs]].
 +  * [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws|Commission Decisions]].
 +  * [[:important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information|RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant]].
 +  * [[/book|The RTI Playbook book]]
 +
 +//Last reviewed on: 27 August 2026. Junk description rebuilt and typos fixed; the practical authorisation sequence and FAQ added.//
 +
 +{{tag>rti case-law cic}}
 +  * [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:shri-nihar-ranjan-banerjee-cvo-and-shri-bidya-nand-mishra-dgm-vig-coal-india-ltd-vs-shri-mn-ghosh|Power of Review by CIC]]