Back
Imposes Six Lakh Seventy Thousand Rupees Costs On Litigant For Misconduct
The , presided over by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, recently delivered a stern verdict against a petitioner for systemic abuse of court processes. The court imposed total costs amounting to ₹6,70,000 on Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu, a resident of Hyderabad, for his persistent refusal to follow court directions and his habitual filing of frivolous applications under the .
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner initially approached the court through an advocate in to challenge an order passed by the , Uttar Pradesh. However, the litigation took an unconventional turn when the petitioner later sought to discharge his counsel and appear in person, while simultaneously insisting on conducting all hearings exclusively via video conferencing. Despite having traveled to Prayagraj multiple times to swear affidavits before the , the petitioner repeatedly defied the court’s directives to appear in person for hearings, claiming logistics and geographic distance as excuses.
A Pattern of Procedural Obstruction
The court observed that the petitioner had filed 24 distinct RTI applications between , seeking irrelevant information regarding administrative file bundles, server logs, and even internal office note sheets. The court noted that these filings were deliberately vague and served only to harass staff and impede the . Furthermore, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application seeking to initiate punitive proceedings against certain respondents for failing to file a , despite records confirming that the requested information had already been supplied to him by registered post.
The Legal Analysis
Justice Shamshery clarified that the availability of virtual hearing options is a matter of intended to facilitate convenience, not a that a litigant can demand. The court emphasized that when a specific directive for personal presence is issued, it must be complied with unless there is a valid, compelling reason. The court’s reasoning distinguished between the legitimate use of legal remedies and the weaponization of the RTI Act to disrupt court functions.
Key Observations
-
"Court finds that such applications would cause hindrance in the and therefore petitioner in person is not allowed to misuse the Act."
-
"Appearance through Video Conferencing is only to facilitate a litigant or an Advocate to expedite the . It cannot be claimed a matter of right."
-
" is habitual of making unnecessary allegations and has filed various applications under Right to Information Act... making prayers as vague as possible."
-
"To discourage the persons such as , not to disturb the Court’s proceedings and , a further cost of Rs. 5,00,000 is imposed on petitioner."
Court’s Decision
Finding no merit in the challenge against the ’s order—as the requisite information had already been provided—the court dismissed the . To uphold the integrity of the judicial process, it imposed costs of ₹50,000 for misstatements in his applications, ₹1,20,000 for the 24 frivolous RTI requests, and a further ₹5,00,000 for the persistent disruption of proceedings. The petitioner has been directed to deposit the total sum of ₹6,70,000 into the account of the within four weeks. This ruling serves as a strong signal to litigants that the court will not tolerate the exploitation of procedural mechanisms to circumvent judicial decorum.
