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

Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a State Information Commission order and imposed over Rs 6.70 lakh in costs after the petitioner-in-person filed 24 RTI applications seeking internal court records, defied directions to appear in person, and submitted an unverified “Formal Written Declaration of Protest” asserting video conferencing as a fundamental right.

On 5 August 2026, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissed Writ-C No. 547 of 2024 filed by Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu, who was appearing as petitioner-in-person. The writ petition challenged an order dated 28 July 2023 passed by the Commissioner, State Information Commission, U.P., Lucknow. Beyond dismissing the petition on merits, the Court imposed a cumulative cost of Rs 6,70,000 on the petitioner across three separate heads, directing payment to the High Court Legal Service Committee within four weeks.

The case presents an unusual convergence of procedural defiance, RTI misuse directed at the court machinery itself, and a substantive challenge to an information commission order that the court found had already provided the petitioner what he sought.

The Writ Petition and the Underlying RTI Dispute

The petition was filed on 5 January 2024 through Advocate Sri Prateek Samadhiya. At its core, it challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the State Information Commission. The Commission had found that the information sought by the petitioner had already been provided by registered post dated 11 January 2023.

The petitioner's original RTI application dated 6 November 2022 sought information relating to complaints made against him, including whether one Shruti Pandey had called the Mahila Helpline or Police Helpline, Gorakhpur on 22 or 23 July 2022; the outcome of a complaint to the Cyber Cell, Lucknow on 4 March 2022; and the identity of officers who had contacted him regarding that complaint, along with phone number verifications for three numbers associated with the Cyber Cell.

The Court examined both the queries and the replies annexed to the writ petition. Each query had been addressed. The authorities had informed the petitioner that no written complaint had been received at the Mahila Helpline from the named complainant; that the IGRS complaint was dealt with by the competent authority at Gorakhpur; and that the Cyber Cell, Lucknow had responded regarding the inquiry and the phone numbers.

The Court found that the petitioner had not denied receiving the information through registered post and had not placed on record a copy of that communication. The Court also noted a report annexed to the writ petition indicating that the petitioner had been harassing a complainant and her daughter, with details of the report already provided to him.

Counsel Discharge, Video Conferencing, and Defiance of Court Orders

In May 2025, while the matter was pending, the petitioner filed an application (IA No. 3/25) dated 5 May 2025 seeking discharge of his counsel and permission to appear in-person and through video conferencing. The application was disposed of on 8 May 2025 by an order that granted only a last opportunity to the respondents to file a counter affidavit within four weeks. The order did not discharge the petitioner's counsel and did not grant permission to appear in-person or by video link.

Despite this, the petitioner proceeded to act as petitioner-in-person. He swore affidavits before an Oath Commissioner at Prayagraj on multiple occasions — including on 25 August 2025 and 29 August 2025 — showing that physical travel to Prayagraj was not impossible. A rejoinder affidavit was also filed on 29 August 2025.

Separately, a counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent-2, the Commissioner, State Information Commission, was filed in the Registry on 23 May 2025 and a copy was served on the petitioner's counsel on 30 May 2025. This was the contesting respondent in the case.

On 24 July 2026, the Court passed a detailed order noting that the petitioner-in-person had assured the Court, via video link from Hyderabad, that he would appear in person on subsequent dates. The Court directed him to appear in person on 5 August 2026. On that date, the petitioner again appeared through video conferencing, which the Court treated as a violation of its order.

The Contempt Application and Its Dismissal with Costs

The petitioner had filed Misc. Application No. 7/25 seeking action against Respondents-1, 3 and 4 for willful disobedience, alleging they had not filed a counter affidavit despite court directions. The Court dismissed this application with costs of Rs 50,000, finding it misconceived and based on incorrect statements.

The court's reasoning was precise: the direction to file a counter affidavit had been addressed to the State respondents generically, not specifically to Respondents-1, 3 and 4. More critically, the counter affidavit of Respondent-2 — the only contesting respondent — had been filed well before the application was moved and a copy had been served on the petitioner's counsel. The Court characterised the application as “not only misconceived but being based on incorrect statement and contrary to record.”

24 RTI Applications Targeting Court Administration

The Court's sharpest observations concerned a separate pattern of conduct. A report from the Deputy Registrar (RTI) disclosed that the petitioner had filed 24 RTI applications between 4 June 2026 and 17 July 2026, all directed at the High Court's own administrative machinery.

The applications sought: legible copies of the Chief Justice Secretariat's internal office note sheets and action taken reports; automated electronic display board sequence logs and server backend history records; physical courtroom attendance registers and Bench Secretary log entries; session command logs for Cisco Webex; network server logs showing login and logout times; physical file movement register entries and transit logbooks; administrative orders and constitution notifications about roster arrangements; and reasons for matters being marked as “Passed Over”.

The Court found these applications had no concern with the petitioner's actual case and were causing hindrance to the administration of justice by wasting the time of court employees. It drew a pointed contrast: the petitioner had time to draft and file 24 RTI applications but refused to appear before the Court to argue the case on its merits.

For these 24 applications, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 each, totalling Rs 1,20,000, and directed that all pending RTI applications be consigned to record. The Court had already, in its earlier July 2026 order, directed that any pending RTI applications seeking information about court proceedings be kept in abeyance and prohibited further such filings until final disposal of the writ petition.

Video Conferencing Is Not a Fundamental Right

On the date of final hearing, the petitioner appeared via video conferencing despite the earlier direction for in-person appearance. When the Court offered to fix a convenient date for his personal appearance, the petitioner stated he would not come in person because he would have to travel approximately 2,000 kilometres and had logistic problems.

The Court rejected this explanation. It found that the petitioner had appeared before an Oath Commissioner in Prayagraj on multiple prior occasions, demonstrating he had made the journey before. The Court had also noted it could arrange for a State Legal Services Authority representative to assist him, and that the matter could be taken up on a fixed date and time of his choosing.

The petitioner had also placed on record an email headed “Formal Written Declaration of Protest”, which was not verified before an Oath Commissioner or a Notary. The Court found the heading “not only vague but contemptuous” and rejected the claim in that document that virtual video conferencing is a fundamental right.

Justice Shamshery articulated the court's position directly: appearance through video conferencing is a facility to expedite adjudication and a matter of convenience, not a right. It is the Court's discretion to allow or refuse it. Where the Court directs in-person appearance, that direction must be followed. The Court further noted that in-person appearance allows the Court, if needed, to appoint an advocate to argue on behalf of an unrepresented litigant — an option unavailable in a video conferencing setting where decorum cannot be similarly controlled.

Merits of the Writ Petition

Proceeding to examine the petition despite these difficulties, the Court reviewed the writ petition with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondents. It found that the petitioner had challenged an order dated 28 July 2023 of the Commissioner, State Information Commission. Although the petitioner had described the impugned order as Annexure-1, the Court found it was Annexure-2.

The State Information Commission had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the required information had already been sent by registered post on 11 January 2023. The Court examined the ten queries and the corresponding replies, and found each had been addressed. The petitioner had not denied receipt of the information and had not placed on record a copy of what he had received to contradict the Commission's finding.

The Court concluded there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

Order

The Court dismissed Writ-C No. 547 of 2024 on merits, finding that the requisite information had already been provided to the petitioner and that the State Information Commission's order warranted no interference.

The Court imposed costs across three heads:

• Rs 50,000 as cost on dismissal of Misc. Application No. 7/25 (the contempt application), found to be misconceived and contrary to record.
• Rs 1,20,000 as cost for 24 RTI applications filed targeting court administration (Rs 5,000 per application).
• Rs 5,00,000 as a further cost to discourage conduct that disturbs court proceedings and the administration of justice.

The total cost of Rs 6,70,000 is to be paid by the petitioner into the Bank Account of the High Court Legal Service Committee within four weeks from 5 August 2026. In the event of default, the Registrar General was directed to take appropriate steps. All pending RTI applications filed by the petitioner were directed to be consigned to record.