RTI Misuse: Allahabad HC Slaps ₹6.7 Lakh Costs After Litigant Filed 24 Vague RTIs in Just Over a Month

Holding that the Right to Information Act cannot be used to obstruct court functioning, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a total cost of Rs 6.7 lakh on a litigant after finding that he repeatedly misused the RTI law, refused to comply with directions to appear physically before the court and continued filing applications that hampered the administration of justice.

Court said a litigant cannot claim a right to appear through video conferencing merely because travelling to court is inconvenient.

It stressed that virtual hearings are only a facility extended by courts and not a fundamental right that can be demanded as a matter of course.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed the order while dismissing a writ petition filed by Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu, who had challenged a 2023 order of the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission rejecting his appeal under the RTI Act after holding that the information sought by him had already been supplied.

Appearance through video conferencing not a fundamental right

Court noted that despite an earlier direction requiring the petitioner to appear in person, he chose to join the hearing through video conferencing. Rejecting his claim that virtual appearance was his fundamental right, court held that video conferencing is only a mode of convenience and remains entirely within the court's discretion.

"If a direction is passed by the Court to appear in-person, that has to be followed without any unreasonable excuse," court observed.

It also pointed out that the petitioner had previously travelled to Prayagraj several times and could have sought assistance from the State Legal Services Authority if required.

Why did the high court find misuse of the RTI Act?

The high court recorded that the petitioner had filed 24 RTI applications within a little over a month seeking information relating to the internal functioning of the high court, including server logs, attendance registers, file movement registers, roster records, Webex session logs and reasons why matters were marked "passed over".

According to the court, these applications were vague and had no concern with the petitioner's case. Instead, they consumed the time of court employees and caused hindrance in the administration of justice.

Court remarked that while the petitioner had ample time to file multiple RTI applications, he avoided appearing before the court to argue his own case on merits. Holding that he had misused the RTI Act, it directed that all such applications be consigned to the record and imposed costs of Rs 5,000 on each application, amounting to Rs 1.20 lakh.

The bench also dismissed another application in which the petitioner sought action against certain respondents for allegedly failing to file a counter affidavit. Court found the application was based on incorrect facts because the contesting respondent had already filed the affidavit and served a copy on the petitioner's counsel. It imposed an additional cost of Rs 50,000 on that application.

Why was the RTI challenge dismissed?

Examining the merits of the petition, the high court found that the RTI queries largely related to complaints allegedly made against the petitioner and that the authorities had already furnished whatever information was available with them.

Court held that a citizen cannot insist on disclosure of information that does not exist in the records of the concerned authority. It also noted a report indicating that the petitioner was allegedly harassing the complainant and her daughter, who had lodged complaints against him.

Finding no reason to interfere with the State Information Commission's decision, the high court dismissed the writ petition.

To deter litigants from disturbing court proceedings and obstructing the administration of justice, it imposed a further cost of Rs 5 lakh. Together with the earlier costs of Rs 50,000 and Rs 1.20 lakh, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs 6.70 lakh with the high court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, failing which the Registrar General was asked to take appropriate steps.

Case Title: Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

Order Date: August 05, 2026

Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery