High Court Penalizes Litigant for Frivolous RTI Applications
In a significant ruling on August 5, the Allahabad High Court imposed a fine of ₹6.7 lakh on a Hyderabad-based litigant, Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu, for disrupting court proceedings. The bench, led by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, determined that the petitioner had filed an excessive number of Right to Information (RTI) applications regarding his ongoing case, titled Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula v State of UP and 3 Others.
The court observed that Vinay Babu had refused to appear physically before the court and insisted on participating only through video conferencing (VC). Justice Shamshery imposed a cost of ₹5,000 for each of the 24 RTI applications submitted by Babu, along with an additional ₹50,000 penalty for submitting incorrect information in one of his applications.
To further discourage such misuse of court resources, the court levied an additional fine of ₹5,00,000. The cumulative penalty of ₹6.7 lakh is mandated to be paid to the High Court Legal Service Committee within four weeks.
Background of the Case
Vinay Babu initially approached the Allahabad High Court in 2024, contesting a decision by the State Information Commission concerning an RTI request he had made to the police. Throughout the proceedings, the court was informed about his numerous RTI filings, totaling 24 between June 4 and July 17. Recognizing the potential disruption, the court had previously put the RTI applications on hold and instructed Babu to appear in person.
On August 5, Babu again chose to appear via VC, citing logistical challenges due to the 2,000 km distance he would have to travel. However, the court noted that he had previously traveled to Allahabad for court matters. Justice Shamshery emphasized that while VC is available to facilitate proceedings, it cannot be claimed as a right. The court retains discretion over its use, and directives to appear in person must be adhered to.
More Read
Implications of Excessive RTI Filings
The court criticized Babu’s excessive RTI filings, which sought internal documents and electronic records related to his case. Such actions, the court stated, not only waste judicial resources but also obstruct the administration of justice.
“The petitioner-in-person is misusing the provisions of the Right to Information Act,” the court concluded, directing that all RTI applications be consigned to record. A total cost of ₹1,20,000 was imposed for the 24 applications, reflecting ₹5,000 per application.
Ruling on the Case Merits
Regarding the substance of Vinay Babu’s case, the court found that the requested information concerning a police complaint against him by a woman had already been provided. Additionally, the court noted that Babu had been harassing the complainant and her daughter.
More Read
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that Babu could not demand information that was unavailable from the concerned authorities.
