RTI activism became new business: SC refuses anticipatory bail

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, June 15, said that RTI (Right to Information) activism has become a new business, while refusing to grant anticipatory bail to an activist and other accused of obstructing a public servant in road construction work.

A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi denied bail to RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl and his aide, and questioned their authority to monitor the road construction work.

Justice Mehta observed, “RTI activism has become a new business. The Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of the road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist! Yellow journalism. Dismissed.”

Concurring with the views of Justice Mehta, Justice Bishnoi said, “Who are you to monitor the construction of all these roads? Are you some superior authority or what?”

Behl has challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order denying him anticipatory bail.

Actvist claims to have been falsely implicated

His counsel contended that they had been falsely implicated in the case as they had highlighted the corruption involved in the road construction work.

According to the first information report (FIR), Behl, along with another accused, Rajiv Kumar, alias Mintu, allegedly obstructed the ongoing road construction work in Batala of Gurdaspur district in Punjab. The accused also intimated to the complainant under whose supervision the work was being executed and the labourers present at the site.

They also used derogatory remarks against the labourer and inflicted injuries on the complainant. An FIR was registered against them under Sections 304(2) (snatching), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant ), 221 (obstructing any public servant in the discharge of his public functions), 121(1) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 351(3), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR was also booked under Sections 3(5), 121(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its order on May 14, said that the allegations levelled in the FIR disclose specific and direct involvement in obstructing the government work and refused to grant them anticipatory bail.