RTI activism a new business! Supreme Court questions raises questions over activist's role

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl and his aide in a case linked to the alleged obstruction of a public servant during road construction work in Punjab. While dismissing the plea, the court said RTI activism had become a new business and questioned the authority of the accused to monitor the work.

A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi denied relief to Behl, who has challenged a Punjab and Haryana High Court order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea. During the hearing, the bench made sharp remarks on the claim of monitoring the road construction work.

DON'T MISS | Haryana's new plan for Gurgaon workers: More work from home to beat traffic chaos

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." Agreeing with him, Justice Bishnoi said, "Who are you to monitor the construction of all these roads? Are you some superior authority or what?"

Behl's counsel argued that he and the other accused had been falsely implicated because they had highlighted corruption in the road construction work. However, according to the FIR, Behl and another accused, Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu, allegedly obstructed the ongoing road construction work in Batala in Punjab's Gurdaspur district. The FIR alleged that they also intimidated the complainant, under whose supervision the work was being carried out, as well as labourers present at the site. It further alleged that they used derogatory remarks against a labourer and caused injuries to the complainant.

MUST READ | Jaipur beats Lucknow and Indore in GDP. Can it become India's next growth engine?

An FIR was registered against them under Sections 304(2), 132, 221, 121(1), 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 3(5) and 121(2) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act. In its order dated May 14, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said the allegations in the FIR disclosed specific and direct involvement in obstructing government work and refused to grant anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court has now upheld that refusal, while questioning the basis on which the accused claimed to monitor the road construction.