4 min readLucknowAug 8, 2026 01:35 PM IST
First published on: Aug 7, 2026 at 07:04 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs 6.70 lakh on a Hyderabad-based man for misusing provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI), observing that he habitually makes unnecessary allegations while filing RTI applications.
The petitioner, Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu alias Vinay Vemula, had filed 24 RTI applications before the Allahabad HC between June 4 and July 17 this year, seeking information and records relating to the functioning and administration of the court including details of internal office notes, file movement records, court attendance registers.
Dismissing the petition in its order dated August 5, a single bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery directed that all 24 RTI applications be consigned to the records of the Deputy Registrar (RTI) office.
Costs imposed
The bench imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on each application, amounting to Rs 1.20 lakh.
It levied another Rs 50,000 against the petitioner for filing a misconceived RTI application.
It further ordered, “… to discourage persons such as the petitioner… to not disturb court proceedings and administration of justice, a further cost of Rs 5,00,000 is imposed…”
The order said the total cost of Rs 6.70 lakh must be paid by the petitioner to the bank account of the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from August 5. In case of default, the Registrar General shall take appropriate steps, it said.
The case
In his initial RTI application filed with the Commissioner of the State Information Commission, UP, in Lucknow, Vemula sought information about a woman who had filed a complaint against him in Gorakhpur and the status of the complaint.
The information was sent but he filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Information Commissioner in 2023. He challenged this in the High Court on January 5, 2024.
The petition was initially filed through an advocate. In May 2025, Vemula sought to discharge his counsel and appear as a petitioner-in-person.
What the court said
The court observed that the petitioner’s appeal before the Information Commission was dismissed on the ground that the required information had already been provided by a registered post dated January 11, 2023.
It said the petitioner had not denied receiving the information in the writ petition nor had he placed a copy of it on record.
During the current hearing, the court took cognisance of the petitioner not appearing in person before the court and seeking permission to appear through video conferencing, citing that he has to travel 2,000 km.
Instead, the petitioner sent an email with the subject line, “Formal Written Declaration of Protest”, asserting that video conferencing was his fundamental right.
The court found the heading not only vague but also contemptuous and observed that virtual hearing was not a fundamental right but a convenience subject to the court’s discretion.
Justice Shamshery took strong exception to the petitioner’s behaviour and said there had recently been instances, not only in the Supreme Court but also in various High Courts, including the Allahabad High Court, where petitioners-in-person failed to maintain court decorum and had acted in an unruly manner.
The court noted that some such petitioners had used video recordings to malign the image of courts.
In the present case, it added, the petitioner was “adamant” and had “bluntly refused” to appear before the court, citing logistical difficulties, despite having already travelled to Allahabad around four or five times.
The bench imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on each application, amounting to Rs 1.20 lakh. (File Photo) 
Share
