Right To Appear Through Video Conferencing Is Not A Fundamental Right But A Matter Of Convenience Based On Court's Discretion: Allahabad High Court

"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." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that virtual court appearances cannot be claimed as an absolute right, emphasizing that video conferencing is merely a procedural convenience subject entirely to judicial discretion.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that litigants cannot arbitrarily refuse physical appearance when specifically directed by the court, while heavily penalizing a petitioner-in-person for abusing the Right to Information Act and filing vexatious applications.

The petitioner, Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu, had initially approached the high court challenging an order dated July 28, 2023, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission, which had dismissed his second appeal on the ground that the requisite information had already been supplied to him. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner sought to discharge his counsel and appear in-person, subsequently insisting exclusively on virtual hearings while raising logistical issues and filing multiple applications under the RTI Act, 2005.

The primary questions before the court were whether virtual appearance through video conferencing constitutes an enforceable fundamental right and whether the petitioner was entitled to further information under the RTI Act despite prior compliance by authorities. The court was also called upon to determine the propriety of imposing exemplary costs for the systemic misuse of court processes and administrative machinery.

Virtual Appearance Not A Fundamental Right

The court firmly ruled that virtual hearings are designed solely to expedite adjudication and facilitate access to justice, rather than to serve as an unfettered tool for litigants to dictate terms to the judiciary. Justice Shamshery noted that despite multiple prior visits to Prayagraj, the petitioner obstinately refused to appear in person, citing long-distance travel and logistic difficulties while ignoring availability through the State Legal Services Authority.

"Virtual Hearings Subject To Judicial Discretion"

The bench highlighted growing judicial concerns regarding litigants who misuse virtual proceedings, noting instances where video recordings have been exploited to malign institutional dignity. The court observed that if a petitioner-in-person remains adamant about avoiding physical attendance without valid justification, the court retains the inherent authority to regulate proceedings, including the appointment of an amicus curiae to argue the matter.

RTI Act Cannot Be Weaponized Against Court Administration

Addressing a comprehensive report submitted by the Deputy Registrar, the court expressed grave concern over the petitioner filing 24 sweeping RTI applications targeting internal administrative workflows, server logs, Cisco Webex session command histories, and courtroom attendance registers. The bench castigated these filings as an unacceptable obstruction to the administration of justice.

"RTI Applications Causing Administrative Hindrance"

The court underscored that statutory RTI mechanisms cannot be converted into fishing expeditions directed at internal judicial notes, automated electronic display board sequences, and transit logbooks. Declaring such applications a direct hindrance to judicial functioning, the court ordered them consigned to records while imposing heavy financial deterrents.

Previous Information Fully Supplied By Authorities

Upon examining the merits of the underlying challenge, the court scrutinized the original RTI queries concerning police helpline complaints and cyber cell inquiries. The bench noted that the statutory authorities had adequately supplied all available information by registered post, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any deficiency or denial in receipt.

"Requisite Information Already Provided To Petitioner"

The court observed that a litigant cannot persistently demand internal records or documents that do not exist or are not legally disclosable under the Act, particularly when the record clearly revealed an attempt to harass a private complainant and her daughter through unending litigation.

Dismissal Of Writ Petition And Imposition Of Heavy Costs

Finding no legal infirmity in the order passed by the State Information Commission, the high court dismissed the writ petition. To decisively penalize the abuse of judicial process, the court imposed a composite cost structure totaling Rs. 6,70,000, which included Rs. 50,000 for a misconceived contempt application, Rs. 1,20,000 calculated at Rs. 5,000 for each of the 24 frivolous RTI applications, and an additional Rs. 5,000,000 as exemplary costs. The petitioner was directed to deposit the entire sum into the Bank Account of the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, failing which the Registrar General was mandated to initiate recovery steps.

Date of Decision: 05 August 2026