Back
Rules Video Conferencing Not A Fundamental Right, Imposes ₹6.7 Lakh Cost
In a significant ruling, the has held that appearing through video conferencing is not a fundamental right but merely a mode of convenience subject to the Court's discretion. The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery imposed a cumulative cost of ₹6.7 lakh on a petitioner-in-person for defying court directions, misusing the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and filing frivolous applications.
A Litigant Who Preferred Screens Over the Courtroom
The case began as a writ petition filed on January 5, 2024, through Advocate Prateek Samadhiya, challenging an order dated July 28, 2023, passed by the Commissioner of the , U.P., Lucknow. The petitioner, Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula, had sought information through an RTI application dated November 6, 2022, concerning complaints allegedly made against him to police helplines in Gorakhpur.
However, the litigation soon veered into procedural tangles. The petitioner filed an application seeking to appear in-person and discharge his counsel, along with a prayer to appear through video conferencing. While the application was disposed of on May 8, 2025, neither the counsel was discharged nor was the petitioner granted permission for video conferencing.
"You Must Appear in Person": A Direction Ignored
On July 24, 2026, the Court passed a clear order directing the petitioner-in-person to appear before the Court physically for final hearing. Despite this, when the matter was taken up on August 5, 2026, the petitioner appeared through video conferencing — a clear violation of the Court's earlier direction.
The Court noted that the petitioner, who hails from Hyderabad, insisted he could not travel approximately 2,000 kilometers due to logistical problems. However, the bench observed that the petitioner had previously visited Allahabad on at least four to five occasions, and that he could have sought assistance from the or had his matter heard on a fixed date.
An Avalanche of RTI Applications
The Court's ire was particularly directed at the petitioner's conduct in filing 24 RTI applications between June 4 and July 17, 2026, seeking highly unusual information. These included demands for internal office note sheets, routing sheets, courtroom attendance registers, Bench Secretary log entries, Cisco Webex session logs, backend server records, and even reasons for why matters were marked "Passed Over."
The Deputy Registrar (RTI) reported these applications to the Court, which found them to be "as vague as possible" and wholly unrelated to the petitioner's actual case. The Court observed that such applications not only wasted the time of court employees but also caused
"hindrance in the administration of justice."
"A Convenience, Not a Right": The Core Legal Principle
Dismissing the petitioner's claim that virtual video conferencing was his fundamental right, the Court articulated a clear legal position:
"Appearance through Video Conferencing is only to facilitate a litigant or an Advocate to expedite the adjudication. It cannot be claimed a matter of right. 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 also took note of an email placed on record titled
"Formal Written Declaration of Protest,"
which was neither verified by an Oath Commissioner nor a Notary. The bench found the document's heading
"not only vague but contemptuous also,"
particularly because the petitioner had asserted that virtual hearing was his fundamental right.
Frivolous Contempt Application Dismissed with Costs
The Court also dealt with the petitioner's Misc. Application No. 7/25 seeking punishment of Respondents 1, 3, and 4 for allegedly failing to file counter affidavits. The Court found this application was based on incorrect statements, since a counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent-2 (Commissioner, ) had already been filed on May 23, 2025, with a copy served on the petitioner's counsel. Additionally, no such direction had been issued to Respondents 1, 3, and 4 to file affidavits. The application was dismissed with a cost of ₹50,000.
The Main Petition: Information Already Provided
On the merits, the Court examined the RTI queries and the replies furnished. The information sought by the petitioner concerned complaints lodged with police helplines and certain phone numbers. The Court found that the authorities had already responded to all queries via registered post dated January 11, 2023, and the petitioner had neither denied receiving the information nor placed the replies on record.
"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 further noted that the petitioner could not demand information that was not available with the concerned authorities. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
The Verdict: ₹6.7 Lakh in Cumulative Costs
The Court imposed three distinct sets of costs: - ₹50,000 for the misconceived contempt application (Misc. Application No. 7/25) - ₹1,20,000 (₹5,000 each for 24 RTI applications) for misuse of the RTI Act - ₹5,00,000 as additional costs to discourage disruption of court proceedings
The total of ₹6,70,000 must be deposited in the bank account of the within four weeks. In case of default, the Registrar General has been directed to take appropriate action.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment sends a clear message to litigants-in-person who attempt to weaponize procedural tools — whether RTI applications or video conferencing — to delay proceedings or harass the judiciary. By affirming that video conferencing is a privilege granted at the Court's discretion and not an absolute entitlement, the has reinforced the primacy of physical court appearances while acknowledging the utility of technology as a facilitative measure.
The ruling also underscores the judiciary's growing intolerance towards abuse of the RTI Act, particularly when used to interfere with the administration of justice. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder that the right to information, like all rights, carries corresponding responsibilities — and that its misuse can attract substantial penalties.
