The Allahabad High Court has imposed costs amounting to ₹6.7 lakh on a Hyderabad-based litigant after finding that he repeatedly interfered with judicial proceedings by filing numerous Right to Information (RTI) applications connected to his own pending case.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that the petitioner, Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu, had inundated the court system with requests seeking internal records relating to the proceedings while simultaneously refusing to comply with directions requiring his physical presence before the Bench.
The Court ordered the petitioner to pay ₹5,000 for each of the 24 RTI applications he submitted between June and July, taking the amount to ₹1.2 lakh. An additional penalty of ₹50,000 was imposed for making an incorrect statement in one of his applications.
Apart from these amounts, the Bench imposed a further cost of ₹5 lakh, noting that such conduct undermines the administration of justice and disrupts court functioning. The entire sum must be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.
The dispute traces back to 2024, when Vinay Babu approached the High Court challenging an order of the State Information Commission concerning an RTI application he had filed with the police authorities.
As the matter progressed, the court registry informed the Bench that the petitioner had submitted 24 RTI applications between June 4 and July 17, all seeking information related to the proceedings in his case. Taking note of the unusual volume of requests, the Court directed on July 24 that all such applications be kept pending and ordered the petitioner to appear in person.
When the matter was taken up again on August 5, Vinay Babu joined the hearing through video conferencing instead of appearing before the Bench. Explaining his absence, he cited the nearly 2,000-kilometre journey from Hyderabad and logistical difficulties.
The Court, however, was unconvinced. It pointed out that the petitioner had travelled to Allahabad on earlier occasions and clarified that virtual hearings are intended only to facilitate speedy adjudication, not to create an enforceable right for litigants.
The Bench stressed that permission to participate through video conferencing rests entirely with the Court and that any direction requiring personal appearance must be obeyed unless there is a genuine and compelling reason.
The Court further found that several of the RTI requests sought internal documents and electronic records that could not legitimately be demanded under the transparency law. According to the Bench, entertaining such applications consumes administrative resources and hampers the functioning of the judicial system.
Observing that the petitioner had enough time to pursue multiple RTI requests but not to appear before the Court and argue his case, the Bench concluded that the provisions of the RTI Act were being misused.
On the substantive issue before it, the Court held that the information sought by Vinay Babu in relation to a police complaint lodged by a woman had already been supplied by the authorities. It also noted allegations that he had been harassing the complainant and her daughter.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court ruled that a citizen cannot insist on receiving information that does not exist in official records and dismissed the case.
