The Allahabad High Court has held that appearance through Video Conferencing is not a fundamental right, but merely a mode of convenience subject to the Court's discretion.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery made the observation while dealing with a petitioner-in-person who appeared through Video Conferencing despite an earlier direction requiring him to appear before the Court in person.

The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of an absolute right to appear through Video Conferencing, observing that such appearance is only meant to facilitate a litigant or an Advocate and expedite adjudication.

"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", the Court said.

The bench further clarified that if a direction is passed by the Court to appear in person, that has to be followed without any unreasonable excuse

The observation came in a writ petition filed by Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu alias Vinay Vemula, who had moved the HC challenging an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission.

The writ petition was initially filed through an Advocate on January 5, 2024. Subsequently, the petitioner sought permission to appear in-person and also prayed to be allowed to appear through Video Conferencing.

The Court noted that although the application was disposed of on May 8, 2025, the petitioner's counsel was not discharged, and neither any permission was granted to the petitioner to appear in-person nor to appear through Video Conferencing.

On July 24, 2026, the Court had directed the petitioner-in-person to remain present in Court in person when the matter was listed for final hearing. However, when the matter was taken up, he appeared through Video Conferencing, which the Court held was a violation of its earlier order.

The petitioner insisted that he would not appear in person as he had to travel about 2,000 kilometres and faced logistic problems.

The Court, however, noted that the petitioner was aware that he could take help of the State Legal Services Authority and that his case could be heard on a fixed date and time. It was observed that "without any good reason he just want to avoid the Court for appearance".

The Bench also noted that the petitioner had already come to Allahabad on about 4-5 occasions. It said that if he appeared in person, the Court could appoint an Advocate on his behalf to argue the case.

However, Justice Shamshery noted that the petitioner remained adamant and "bluntly refused to appear before this Court on ground of logistic problems".

The Court also took note of an email placed on record by the petitioner bearing the heading “Formal Written Declaration of Protest”.

It observed that the document was not accompanied by verification either through an Oath Commissioner or a Notary and found the heading "not only vague but contemptuous also".

The Court noted that the petitioner had asserted in the document that virtual Video Conferencing was his fundamental right.

"As already observed, it is not a fundamental right but it is a convenience based on Court's discretion", the Court reiterated.

The Court's observations came against the backdrop of the petitioner's repeated filing of applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 concerning the Court proceedings in the same case.

The Court had earlier noted that the petitioner had filed various RTI applications seeking information related to the Court proceedings and found that such applications would "cause hindrance in the administration of justice".

It had directed that any such pending RTI proceedings be kept in abeyance and further directed the petitioner not to file any such application under the RTI Act till the matter was finally decided.

However, according to a report submitted by the Deputy Registrar (RTI), the petitioner subsequently filed 24 RTI applications between June 4 and July 17, 2026, making prayers that the Court described as vague.

The applications sought, among other things, internal office note sheets, routing sheets, Action Taken Reports, file movement registers, courtroom attendance registers, Bench Secretary log entries, Cisco Webex session logs, backend server records, temporary roster arrangements, reasons for supplementary cause lists and reasons why matters were marked “Passed Over.”

The Court observed that such applications "not only wastes the time of employees of Court but has also caused hindrance in administration of justice".

Finding that the petitioner was "misusing the provisions of Right to Information Act", the Court directed that all the applications be consigned to record and imposed a cost of ₹5,000 for each of the 24 applications, amounting to ₹1.20 lakh.

The Bench further took note of recent instances in the Supreme Court, various High Courts and the Allahabad High Court where the petitioner-in-person had, according to the Court, not followed the decorum of the Court and had acted in a "haste and unruly manner".

The Court also observed that video recordings had been used to “malign the image of Courts.”

The Court also dismissed, with ₹50,000 costs, an application filed by the petitioner seeking punishment of the respondents for allegedly not filing a counter affidavit. It found the application to be not only misconceived but also based on an incorrect statement and contrary to the record.

As regards the main writ petition, the Court found that the information sought under the RTI Act had already been provided to the petitioner through registered post and that he had neither denied receiving it nor placed the supplied information on record.

The Court held that once the requisite information had already been provided, the petitioner cannot insist on providing information that is not available with the concerned authorities.

Hence, it found no reason to interfere with the State Information Commission's order and dismissed the writ petition.

The Court thereafter imposed a further ₹5 lakh cost to “discourage the persons such as petitioner-in-person, not to disturb the Court's proceedings and administration of justice”.

Thus, the total costs imposed came to ₹6.70 lakh, including ₹50,000, ₹1.20 lakh and ₹5 lakh.

The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount in the Bank Account of the High Court Legal Service Committee within four weeks, failing which the Registrar General was directed to take appropriate steps.

Case Title - Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542