Allahabad High Court imposes ₹6.7 lakh costs on Hyderabad man for disturbing court proceedings

The Allahabad High Court on August 5 imposed costs of ₹6.7 Lakh on a litigant for disturbing court proceedings by filing multiple applications under Right to Information (RTI) Act to seek information about his pending case [Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula v State of UP and 3 Others]

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamashery also noted that the petitioner, one Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu, who is from Hyderabad, declined to physically appear before the Court and insisted to argue only through video-conferencing (VC).

The Court imposed costs of ₹5,000 for each of the 24 RTI applications filed by him and another ₹50,000 for making an incorrect statement in an application moved by him.

"To discourage the persons such as petitioner-in-person, not to disturb the Court’s proceedings and administration of justice, a further cost of ₹5,00,000 is imposed on petitioner," the Court added.

The total cost of ₹6.7 lakh has to be paid within four weeks to the High Court Legal Service Committee.

Vinay Vemula first approached the Court in 2024 with a petition challenging an order of the State Information Commission related to an RTI application filed by him with the police.

During the hearing of the case, High Court registry informed the bench that he filed various RTI applications related to court proceedings of his petition. 24 applications were filed between June 4 and July 17.

On July 24, the Court directed that the RTI applications be kept in abeyance till further orders and also directed Vinay Vemula to appear in person.

On August 5, he again appeared through VC. When asked why he was not present before the Court, Vinay Vemula said that he has to travel about 2,000 kms and has logistic problems.

However, the Court noted that he had earlier travelled to Allahabad on multiple occasions. The Court said appearance through VC is only to facilitate a litigant or an advocate to expedite the adjudication. 

It cannot be claimed a matter of right, the Bench added.

"It is the Court’s discretion to allow Video Conferencing or not. If a direction is passed by the Court to appear in-person, that has to be followed without any unreasonable excuse," the Court said.

The Court also noted that he had filed unnecessary RTI applications seeking internal documents and electronic record about his case.

It said that such RTI applications cannot be entertained since it not only wastes the time of employees of court but also causes hindrance in administration of justice. 

"In aforesaid circumstances, Court finds that petitioner-in-person is misusing the provisions of Right to Information Act. Therefore, his all applications seeking information under Right to Information Act are directed to be consigned to record and for 24 applications, this Court imposed a cost of ₹5,000 each, i.e., total ₹1,20,000," the Court said.

The petitioner-in-person has ample time to file various applications under RTI Act but not to appear before the court and argue the case on merit, the Bench added.

On merits of his case, the Court found that Vinay Vemula was already provided the information sought by him regarding a police complaint filed against him by a woman. It also noted that he was harassing the complainant and her daughter.

"From perusal of queries and reply, referred above, it is evident that requisite information has already been provided to petitioner. He cannot insist to provide an information which is not available with concerned authorities," the Court said, while dismissing the plea.

[Read Order]