Times of India: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 22 January 2026.
The Gujarat State Information Commission (GSIC) barred RTI activist Khushal Verma from appearing in hearings on behalf of other citizens, citing concerns over proxy use and possible misuse of the Right to Information Act.
The direction was issued
by the 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
alleged a delay in disclosing information regarding an alleged illegal construction
and authorised Verma to represent him before the commission. However, neither
Dabhi nor Verma was present during the hearing held on Jan 1, 2026.
In its order, the commission noted that Verma had already been subject to restrictions in an earlier case. "Khushal Verma was already directed not to file more than 25 RTI applications in a calendar year," the order noted, referring to a decision passed in a separate appeal on Jan 29, 2025.
Taking note of Verma's repeated authorisations to represent other applicants, the commission observed that such a practice raised the possibility of indirect filing and pursuit of RTI matters.
"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, first appellate authority or the commission," the order stated.
At the same time, the commission refused to initiate penalty proceedings against the public information officer (PIO) of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's north zone. The complaint sought action under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, alleging failure to provide information within the statutory time limit.
The commission accepted the PIO's submission that notices relating to the alleged illegal construction were issued, and that copies of three notices were supplied to the complainant free of cost on July 24, 2025. Regarding police correspondence and a report to the deputy municipal commissioner, the order recorded that no such records existed at the relevant time. "No question of withholding information arises," the commission held.
It further recorded that during the hearing of the first appeal, the complainant was again provided information in person and acknowledged receipt by signing the original records on Oct 11, 2025.
An RTI activist from the city, Bharatsinh Jhala, said the order reflected the commission's attempt to strike a balance. "It flags concerns about bulk filings and proxy representation by activists, while also reiterating that penalty provisions will not be invoked if officials demonstrate timely compliance," he said.
The Gujarat State Information Commission (GSIC) barred RTI activist Khushal Verma from appearing in hearings on behalf of other citizens, citing concerns over proxy use and possible misuse of the Right to Information Act.
In its order, the commission noted that Verma had already been subject to restrictions in an earlier case. "Khushal Verma was already directed not to file more than 25 RTI applications in a calendar year," the order noted, referring to a decision passed in a separate appeal on Jan 29, 2025.
Taking note of Verma's repeated authorisations to represent other applicants, the commission observed that such a practice raised the possibility of indirect filing and pursuit of RTI matters.
"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, first appellate authority or the commission," the order stated.
At the same time, the commission refused to initiate penalty proceedings against the public information officer (PIO) of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's north zone. The complaint sought action under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, alleging failure to provide information within the statutory time limit.
The commission accepted the PIO's submission that notices relating to the alleged illegal construction were issued, and that copies of three notices were supplied to the complainant free of cost on July 24, 2025. Regarding police correspondence and a report to the deputy municipal commissioner, the order recorded that no such records existed at the relevant time. "No question of withholding information arises," the commission held.
It further recorded that during the hearing of the first appeal, the complainant was again provided information in person and acknowledged receipt by signing the original records on Oct 11, 2025.
An RTI activist from the city, Bharatsinh Jhala, said the order reflected the commission's attempt to strike a balance. "It flags concerns about bulk filings and proxy representation by activists, while also reiterating that penalty provisions will not be invoked if officials demonstrate timely compliance," he said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
