Allahabad HC Dismisses RTI Writ, Slaps Rs 6.70 Lakh Cost on Petitioner Who Filed 24 RTI Applications About Own Case Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ challenging a State Information Commission order and imposed Rs 6.70 lakh in cumulative costs on the petitioner-in-person for abusing RTI processes and defying a court direction to appear in person.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, sitting singly at Allahabad, dismissed a civil writ petition filed by Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu, also known as Vinay Vemula, on 5 August 2026. The petitioner had challenged an order dated 28 July 2023 passed by the Commissioner, State Information Commission, U.P., Lucknow. The court found that the information sought by the petitioner had already been furnished by registered post in January 2023, leaving no basis to interfere with the appellate order. Alongside dismissal, the court imposed total costs of Rs 6,70,000 after recording that the petitioner had serially misused the Right to Information Act, 2005 by flooding court administration with 24 applications seeking internal court records, violated a direction to appear in person, filed a contemptuous written declaration, and moved a misconceived contempt application built on an incorrect statement of facts.

The Underlying RTI Dispute and the Writ

The writ petition was originally filed on 5 January 2024 through Advocate Prateek Samadhiya. The petitioner had, by an application dated 6 November 2022, sought information from U.P. Police authorities on ten specific questions. These concerned whether one Shruti Pandey had called the Mahila Helpline or the regular police helpline at Gorakhpur on 22 or 23 July 2022 to lodge a complaint against him, the result of any inquiry, and whether certain telephone numbers belonged to the Cyber Cell, Lucknow.

The State Information Commission dismissed the petitioner's second appeal on the ground that all required information had already been sent by registered post on 11 January 2023. The court, after perusing both the queries and the replies, found the position identical: the concerned authorities had furnished responses to each of the ten questions, and the petitioner could not compel production of information that was not available or had already been supplied. The court also noted a report annexed to the writ petition indicating that the petitioner was allegedly harassing the complainant and her daughter who had filed a complaint against him.

With no basis to set aside the Commission's order, the writ was dismissed on merits.

Procedural Conduct That Triggered Cost Orders

While the merits were straightforward, the petitioner's conduct during the pendency of the case generated the more substantial part of the judgment.

After filing the petition through counsel, the petitioner filed an application dated 5 May 2025 seeking to discharge his advocate and to appear as petitioner-in-person, with permission to participate via Video Conferencing from Hyderabad. The application, bearing IA No. 3/25, was disposed of on 8 May 2025. The court found from the record that the disposal order neither discharged the counsel nor granted permission to appear in-person or through Video Conferencing. Despite this, the petitioner began conducting himself as petitioner-in-person.

On 24 July 2026, the court passed an order noting that the petitioner had assured it he would appear in person on the next date. The matter was listed for final hearing on 5 August 2026. On that date, the petitioner appeared again through Video Conferencing. The court recorded that this was a violation of its earlier direction.

When the court offered to fix the hearing on a date convenient to the petitioner and pointed out that the State Legal Services Authority could assist with travel, the petitioner refused to come to Prayagraj, citing a distance of approximately 2,000 kilometres and logistical problems. The court found this unpersuasive given that its own records showed the petitioner had already come to Prayagraj on approximately four or five occasions — including appearances before an Oath Commissioner on 25 August 2025 and 29 August 2025 in connection with applications filed in the same case.

RTI Applications Targeting Court Administration

The court's order records a report submitted by the Deputy Registrar (RTI) showing that the petitioner filed 24 RTI applications between 4 June 2026 and 17 July 2026 — all directed at the court's own administrative machinery. The requests included demands for internal file movement registers, Bench Secretary log entries, Cisco Webex session command logs, server backend history records of the electronic display board, network connection timeline logs showing exact login and logout times, administrative orders concerning roster arrangements, and reasons why certain matters were marked as “Passed Over” on cause lists.

The court had already directed on 24 July 2026 that any pending RTI application of this nature be kept in abeyance and that no further such application be filed until the writ was finally decided. The court found that these applications had caused hindrance to the administration of justice and wasted the time of court employees, while the petitioner simultaneously refused to advance his case on merits.

Contempt Application Dismissed with Cost

The petitioner also filed Misc. Application No. 7/25, praying that Respondents-1, 3 and 4 be punished for wilful disobedience on the ground that no counter affidavit had been filed on their behalf despite a court order.

The court found this application misconceived on two grounds. First, the court's direction to file a counter affidavit was addressed to the State; Respondents-1, 3 and 4 had not been specifically directed to file affidavits. Second, a counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent-2, the Commissioner, State Information Commission, U.P. (identified as the contesting respondent), had been filed in the Registry on 23 May 2025 and a copy had been served on the petitioner's counsel on 30 May 2025 — well before the application was moved. The court accordingly dismissed Application No. 7/25 as being “not only misconceived but being based on incorrect statement and contrary to record.”

On Video Conferencing as a Right

The petitioner had asserted in a subsequent application, and reiterated in an unverified document placed on record with the heading “Formal Written Declaration of Protest”, that appearance through Video Conferencing was his fundamental right. The court rejected this squarely.

The judgment states that Video Conferencing is a mode of convenience to facilitate litigants and advocates in expediting adjudication. It is not a right, fundamental or otherwise. The court has the discretion to allow or refuse it. Where a court directs a litigant to appear in person, that direction must be followed without unreasonable excuse. The court added that, across courts including the Supreme Court, instances had arisen where petitioners-in-person had not followed court decorum, acted in an unruly manner, and used video recordings to harm the image of courts — a factor relevant to why in-person appearance may be required in appropriate cases.

The unverified “Formal Written Declaration of Protest” was described by the court as not only vague but contemptuous, given that it carried no verification through an Oath Commissioner or a Notary.

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed on merits. Costs were imposed in three tranches:

• Rs 50,000 on dismissal of Misc. Application No. 7/25 as misconceived and contrary to record.
• Rs 5,000 each for 24 RTI applications directed at court administration, totalling Rs 1,20,000.
• Rs 5,00,000 as a further cost to discourage conduct that disturbs court proceedings and the administration of justice.

The aggregate cost is Rs 6,70,000. The court directed the entire amount to be deposited in the bank account of the High Court Legal Service Committee within four weeks. In the event of default, the Registrar General was directed to take appropriate steps.